Bill S-8 (Historical)

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands

This enactment addresses health and safety issues on reserve lands and certain other lands by providing for regulations to govern drinking water and waste water treatment in First Nations communities. Regulations could be made on a province-by-province basis to mirror existing provincial regulatory regimes, with adaptations to address the circumstances of First Nations living on those lands.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

You mentioned in your address, and going back to the water discussion, $136 million in supplementary estimates (A) this year for water and waste-water infrastructure on reserve. Of course, you mentioned coming in with Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. I understand this legislation is helping protect our government's significant investments in first nations water and waste-water systems. I'm wondering if you could elaborate, for some of us who are relatively new on this committee, on some of the benefits that have come about by the adoption of this piece of legislation.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in the House to speak to a bill that is extremely important to the people who sent me to Parliament, first nations and indigenous people in northern Manitoba, and of course, first nations people across our country.

I want to begin by speaking about the reality that first nations youth face in communities in our part of the country. Some weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Little Grand Rapids. Little Grand Rapids is a small first nation on the southeast side of Lake Winnipeg. It is isolated. There are no roads that go there; it is in the middle of the forest, or the bush, as we call it. People work hard at what they do, hunting, trapping, fishing, and they hope for the best for the future of their kids, as anybody does.

What I hear from them when I visit from house to house is their concern for their kids, the concern that their kids are not going to have the same opportunities as other kids. It is not because of where Little Grand Rapids is, how far it is from the city or where it is positioned geographically. It is because it is a first nation, and they know their kids face some of the most unequal opportunities in terms of education in this country. Because they are first nations, going to school on reserve, they are guaranteed to be going to a school that is funded to a lesser extent than other schools.

What does that mean? It means that their kids go to a school that some people describe as a fire trap. It is a school where the doors do not lock properly. In order to lock them in -40° weather, so the cold does not come in, they have to a use a chain and a lock. It means the fire alarm system does not work. In fact, when Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development built the school, it hooked up those little fire alarm contraptions that we see everywhere else. It put them on the walls throughout the school and never hooked up the wiring to a fire alarm system. Guess what? There is no fire alarm system. Not only is there no fire alarm system, but as a result there is no sprinkler system, and due to the underfunding, there are no fire extinguishers.

My question in the House for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is whether he would be okay with his kids going to a school like that. Why should the youth of Little Grand Rapids and first nations across this country go to schools that are dangerous, underfunded, falling apart, and full of mould, that do not have enough books, do not have enough teachers, and do not have enough resources, and that are setting them up to fail?

When we talk about the history of colonialism and paternalism that first nations have faced in this country, we cannot just talk about history, because it is happening today. It is happening in the way first nations people face unequal standards across the board, whether it be education, health, employment, housing, or infrastructure. The list goes on.

To see what is most fundamentally clear in the response to the needs of first nations youth and the kind of paternalism we see, one has to go no further than the approach the government has taken on Bill C-33, the first nations education act. The reason I say that is that a fundamental obligation of the federal government to consult with first nations people has not been adhered to in the development of this critical bill.

First nations across the country, certainly those in Manitoba, have been clear that, without consultation, the bill cannot be supported. It is not because they have not made clear the importance of consultation. They have made it clear and have been consistent over the last number of years.

In December 2012, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada began consultations on an education act. In July 2013 the department released a document called “Developing a First Nation Education Act: A Blueprint for Legislation”. With few amendments, that blueprint became a draft legislative proposal for a first nations education act in October 2013. I am sure all too many members of the government will remember that the draft proposal was condemned by first nations educators, leaders, and activists overwhelmingly.

On the very issue we are discussing today, on the critical issue of education for first nations, first nations have told us the direction they want to take and their priorities.

In 2013 a special assembly the Assembly of First Nations highlighted five priorities: first, respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nations control of first nations education jurisdiction; second, statutory guarantee of funding; third, funding to support first nations education systems that are grounded in indigenous languages and cultures; fourth, mechanisms to ensure reciprocal accountability and no unilateral federal oversight or authority; and fifth, ongoing dialogue and co-development of options. Those five priorities were laid out clearly in a very public manner by first nations themselves, and sadly, the federal government failed to adhere to those priorities.

What we hear from the federal government is rhetoric that is at first premised on having spoken with first nations and of having heard real concerns. Then when I and my colleagues raise the concern that first nations across the country have not been consulted on this legislation, when they need to be consulted, we hear threats, intimidation, and the same old colonial attitudes that first nations have put up with for centuries.

It is clear that first nations across this country are saying no to the first nations education act. I and my colleagues in the NDP are proud to stand with them. I am proud to stand with first nations educators who are speaking out against the first nations education act.

I would like to share the words of Janice Mokokis, an educator and lawyer from Alberta, who has been involved with the Idle No More movement. She has been clear in her opposition to the first nations education act. Janice tells us:

There have been rallies and teach-in's held across the country to inform the Canadian public and First Nations about the implications of this Bill. People who have attended the rallies include children, mothers, fathers, teachers, professionals, leaders and those that would be directly affected by this...[government's actions]. There has been consistent opposition about the Conservative's agenda what they deem to be good for First Nations on Education. The Conservative's idea of 'consultation' needs to be closely questioned and critically examined. For example: In the Saskatoon consultation, people were...pushed out of the 'education consultation'.

It was made clear that they were not welcome to have their voices heard.

I also stand in solidarity with people in the blue dot campaign, who made clear their opposition to the government's desire for them not to be welcome at the announcement on the Kainai first nation in Alberta. Members of that nation and first nations people from across the country were there to hear an announcement of legislation that has everything to do with their future, and yet they were not even welcome to stay in the room.

It is clear that there is opposition from coast to coast to coast. First nations people are saying that their inherent rights are not being respected, that their treaty right to education is not being respected, and that the right to consultation that they have under the Canadian Constitution and that is recognized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not being respected. The necessity of consultation is not being respected.

The reality is that first nations youth sit by and suffer as a result of the way the Conservative government is approaching a fundamental part of their development and future. We know the statistics are grim. Secondary school data over the last number of years identify the rate of first nations graduation at approximately 36%, compared to the Canadian graduation rate of 72%. Some 61% of first nations young adults have not completed high school, compared with 13% of non-aboriginal people in Canada.

In 2010, there were more than 515 first nations elementary and secondary schools available to approximately 109,000 first nations students resident on reserve. Over 64% of these students attended 515 on-reserve schools operated by first nations. The majority, 75%, were enrolled in either kindergarten or elementary school.

First nations youth is the largest young population in our country. I am so privileged to have had a chance to visit first nations across our region and look into the bright faces of these little kids, who want to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, and carpenters and who want to do great things. All I can think of is the way I come to work every day to look at a government, a Prime Minister, and a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that do everything in their power to ignore the voices of their communities, educators, and leaders. They say they are doing the right thing and they say they are going to do the right thing, but after the next election, maybe in a few years, or maybe if they get re-elected. Maybe. All the while, these young people are left in limbo.

I am also fortunate to have learned from elders. They are elders who fought as part of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, fought against the white paper, and fought against the control that the federal government had on their education. They fought back, and they fought for first nations control of first nations education. Many of these elders are not with us today, owing to the challenging life situations in our communities and the shorter life spans that first nations people have. However, in my conversations with them and in my journey to Parliament, they taught me a very clear lesson, that first nations control over first nations education is fundamental to the success of the education system. It is fundamental to the success of first nations youth as they go forward. This is because first nations know what their nations need.

We know about education in first nations language; youth who learn their first nations language succeed at great rates. We know that when they have the resources in their schools to learn their mother tongue, the historic language of their people, they will have opportunities that other youth do not have. We know that when first nations have control over the kind of curriculum, priorities, and lessons that are shared with their youth, their students succeed.

I think of first nations like Roseau River, Peguis, Fisher River, and others that have had very successful models when it comes to education. It is not because the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development told them how to do it. In fact, it is the absolute opposite. It is these first nations that have stood up and sometimes, with the few resources they have, pulled together extraordinary people. They have supported the education of their youth, who have gone on to become experts and specialists in education and have come back to their communities and invested in the resource that is most important to them: their youth.

One would think that, in seeing the successes and knowing the way graduation rates in first nations increase when there is proper funding and proper support, when there is a focus on first nations language, the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs would celebrate, that it would say that first nations control over first nations education is critical.

Consulting with first nations on further steps, on a first nations education program, is not only critical but first nations need to be leading that direction. Instead, what we have is a slap in the face from the federal government, which has a fiduciary obligation to first nations that makes it very clear that it does not matter what success these students have, it does not matter what success these leaders have had in fighting for education in their communities, with its response to promise action and change and to do that with a father-knows-best mentality, that what it knows best is what is going to go.

Some years ago I had the honour of sitting with leaders and grassroots people in Thompson at the office of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, where we saw live the apology the Prime Minister made to first nations people about the tragedy of the residential school system. I remember it moved all of us. I am proud that our leader Jack Layton was integral in that important historic day. There were tears. There was sobbing. There were people who were very emotional about that apology, people who had been very clear about the abuse, the oppression, and the racism they had faced. However, there was also an overwhelming sense of hope, hope that things can change, that a new spirit of reconciliation was guiding our country.

Over the last six or seven years, I cannot say how many people I have met across northern Manitoba, how many first nations people, who have said obviously that apology meant nothing to the Prime Minister. People took the time to believe and to enter into that spirit of reconciliation. Unfortunately, through the actions of Prime Minister, not just in looking at Bill C-33 but also Bills S-2, S-6 and S-8, as well as omnibus bills like Bills C-45 and C-38, we can look at the long list of legislative actions that the government has taken that fly in the face of that apology, of that spirit of reconciliation, of that commitment that the relationship with first nations would be different.

At the end of the day, is there anything more important than investing in the future of our young people? In the one area of education, the federal government had the chance to change course and maybe remember the statement that the Prime Minister had made in terms of that apology and act in the spirit of that apology. Instead, he and his government have chosen to take a very different approach, an approach that is clearly not only supported by first nations but is extremely deeply problematic in terms of the future of first nations education in our country.

In closing, I am proud to stand with first nations in Manitoba who oppose the first nations education act and who are very clear in demanding far better from the government, from Canada, and from the Crown when it comes to the future of education for first nations.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:

C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)—Chapter 10, 2013.

C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 11, 2013.

C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act—Chapter 12, 2013.

S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 13, 2013.

C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts —Chapter 14, 2013.

C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity)—Chapter 15, 2013.

C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Chapter 16, 2013.

S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War—Chapter 17, 2013.

C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18, 2013.

S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)—Chapter 19, 2013.

S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves—Chapter 20, 2013.

S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands—Chapter 21, 2013.

C-63, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 22, 2013.

C-64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 23, 2013.

C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24, 2013.

C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25, 2013.

S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act—Chapter 26, 2013.

S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes—Chapter 27, 2013.

S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001—Chapter 28, 2013.

It being 4:24 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:24 p.m.)

First Nations Elections Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although we certainly support the four-year election term under this legislation, there are a number of other parts of the legislation that are ill-defined. We have to look to other instances where people cannot trust what is in legislation. I look to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its ongoing dispute with the government over relevant documents.

In this piece of legislation, clause 41 sets out the regulation process. This regulation process is important because it covers the appointment, powers, duties and removal of electoral officers and deputy electoral officers, the manner of identifying electors of a participating first nations and so on. There are a number of very important clauses that regulations would define.

Nowhere in this piece of legislation is the process outlined by which first nations will be included in the development of regulations. At least in Bill S-8, the clean drinking water bill, in the preamble it said “working with first nations”. However, it does not say that anywhere in this act.

I wonder if the member could address specifically how first nations would be included in the development of regulations.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have that level of civility. I congratulate my friend across the way.

Before asking the usual Thursday question and before the government House leader across the way starts to talk about how he has been able to abuse Parliament over the past week, I would like to make a small observation for all those listening.

Of all the bills I am sure he is about to mention that are important, not a single bill passed through this legislative process in anything resembling a normal fashion. Bills S-8, S-15, S-17, S-2, S-6, S-10, S-16, C-56 and C-60, every single bill we have debated in the past week, operated under time allocation. I might parenthetically add that seven of them came from the Senate. It seems like a strange place for the government to get its agenda: a bunch of unelected, under-investigation senators, but so be it. It is the government's choice.

We tried to work with the government to find ways to allow the House to debate bills and to do so expediently. A good example is the Sable Island as a national park bill. For example, we offered up about five or six speakers who wanted to address the merits of the bill, which would have allowed the passage of that bill after they had spoken. The reaction from the leader from the other side was to move time allocation, which in fact ended up taking up more time in the House than the offer the NDP had made would have taken.

The Conservatives' strategy is sometimes bizarre. In fact, it is hard to figure out whether it is a strategy or not. I would like the Conservative member to enlighten me on this, even though the Conservatives' responses have no merit.

We have spent more than 14 hours debating and voting on time allocation motions in the past two weeks alone. I find it ironic that the government allots only five hours of debate to the content of the bill under time allocation, when the vast majority of our time is spent debating and voting on the time allocation motions and not on the bills. That is the Conservatives' way of doing business.

When will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons learn that a hammer is not the only tool available for getting the work done?

Could the leader of the government tell us what his plans are for this week and the week following?

Second Reading

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill S-6, an act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations and the composition of council of those first nations.

Before I start, I would like to read from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In article 18, is says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

That particular section of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is particularly important because, of course, what we are talking about today is how first nations elect their chiefs and council members.

I will turn for a moment to the legislative summary. It indicates that, “First Nations may choose to opt in to the new elections regime proposed under the legislation, or they may be brought under the new elections regime by ministerial order in some circumstances.”

I would agree with previous speakers that moving to a four-year term on an opt-in basis absolutely makes sense, but there are other elements of this legislation that first nations have spoken out against. If the government would entertain some amendments to this piece of legislation, I am sure we could all agree on how to move forward.

I would like to go back to the legislative summary:

According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 240 First Nations hold elections pursuant to the Indian Act, 341 First Nations conduct “custom” or community-based elections rather than elections under the Indian Act, and 36 First Nations select their leaders according to their self-government agreements.

This is an important point because of the fact that there are already a variety of ways by which first nations select their leadership.

The legislative summary notes that the Senate released a report entitled, “First Nations Elections: The Choice is Inherently Theirs” and says:

It indicated that the existing two-year term of office imposed on First Nations by the Indian Act is too short to provide political and economic stability, often creating deep divisions in communities. The report further noted that Indian Act election systems are often fraught with administrative difficulties and inconsistencies, resulting in frequent election appeals.

The legislative summary goes on to talk about the number of times attempts have been made to make reforms to the Indian Act around the elections process. It notes that:

Attempts to reform the Indian Act election system arise from growing First Nations dissatisfaction with the operation of the regime, including its administrative weaknesses, such as loose nomination procedures and a mail-in ballot system that is open to abuse.

Other substantive concerns with Indian Act elections relate to the degree of ministerial intervention, the lack of an adequate and autonomous appeals process and the absence of flexibility to set the terms of office and to determine the size of councils.

It is those points around the ministerial intervention and the autonomous appeals process that are sticking points in the current piece of legislation.

The summary goes on to talk about the fact that a number of recommendations arose as a result of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and some of these recommendations that are not included in this piece of legislation are as follows, and this is from 1996:

With respect to elections, a key proposal was to develop community leadership selection systems and remove the application of the Indian Act as a preliminary measure to re-establishing traditional forms of leadership....To accomplish this, the following steps were suggested: community-level development of custom codes; community development of local dispute resolution procedures; the establishment of regional First Nations capacity and advisory bodies;

And so on.

Again, some of the elements that were recommended back in 1996 are not present or appropriately resourced under the current legislation. I mentioned earlier that one of the sticking points was under clause 3(1), which states that the minister may, by order, add a first nation to this schedule of first nations participating in the new election system.

Once again, I know that the former parliamentary secretary pointed out the fact that this power has been in place, but here we are reinforcing and reiterating that power once again. This is one point where first nations are saying to butt out. They should be able to have an appeals process internally to look at this. I will speak to this point in a little more detail later.

The other problem with this legislation is the regulations in clause 41. The clause provides for the governor-in-council to have broad and general powers to make regulations with respect to elections. Again, I will touch on this point a little later.

With regard to the support, initially we had the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress that were engaged in consultation around the development of the legislation. However, this is a pattern that we continue to see with the government. There are reports and recommendations from first nations, and then the government disregards some or all of those recommendations and reports.

This is the case in point. According to the legislative summary:

Opinions on the ensuing legislation are divided among First Nations organizations involved in the engagement process: while some support the new legislation, others do not view it as reflective of the report and recommendations.

Some First Nations leaders expressed strong support for Bill S-6. At the December 2011 announcement of the new legislation...the Atlantic Policy Congress, echoed the government's view that the Act will support sound governance and increase economic development in First Nations communities.

The current Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak, however, has expressed strong opposition to Bill S-6. In a written statement, quoted in several media outlets on 7 December 2011, 37 Grand Chief Nepinak stated that the proposed legislation does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and represents an apparent “attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control of the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code.”

In particular, Grand Chief Nepinak has criticized the following features of Bill S-6: in certain circumstances, the Minister’s ability to bring First Nations under the legislation without their consent; the lack of a First Nations appeals process; and the conduct of draws to resolve tie votes in elections for band council chiefs and councillors.

There is not the kind of support that the government is touting. I want to turn to a legal opinion from December 29, 2011. This has been provided primarily to first nations using a customary election code or regulations, and this is the legal opinion, and this is why it is important for first nations that are currently under custom code:

Based on a preliminary review of the proposed legislation, Bill S-6 may offer an improvement over the existing Indian Act election provisions. However, for those First Nations that already operate under their own customary election codes or regulations, opting into the First Nations Elections Act would provide only marginal benefits and may in some instances be viewed as a step back in a First Nations pursuit of self-government.

While there may be specific provisions within Bill S-6 that a particular First Nation may find attractive (such as a four year election term), First Nations should consider amending their existing custom codes or regulations to incorporate any provisions of interest as opposed to opting into the First Nations Elections Act.

I mentioned earlier clause 41 and the concerns. What we saw with Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was that bill was enabling legislation that laid out a process and some content for regulations.

Of course, what happened is that there is no meaningful provision for first nations to be involved in the development of regulations and the subsequent implementation of regulations. That is the same case in this legislation.

The legal brief says:

The Regulations—the Devil is in the Details

At this time, all that the Government has shared with First Nations are the provisions within Bill S-6. Section 41 of the Bill provides for the regulatory making powers of the Governor in Council. The Regulations to be passed include those dealing with the appointment, powers and duties of Electoral Officers, the certification (decertification) of Electoral Officers, who are electors, who and how candidates may be nominated, how voting is to be conducted, and the removal of a Chief or Councillor by way of a petition and anything else in the Act that requires regulation.

Those are pretty broad scopes of power under the regulations, and nowhere in Bill S-6 does it talk about how first nations will be included in that process. People are right to raise flags around that.

The brief goes on to say:

Ultimately, how attractive this legislation will be to any First Nation will depend greatly on what is, or is not included or provided for within the Regulations. However, it should be kept in mind that Regulations are designed and intended to be amended easily and quickly. Therefore, while a First Nation may opt into the First Nations Elections Act on the basis of what it considers to be attractive Regulations, there is no guarantee that the Governor in Council will not change these Regulations to something that a First Nation may find less appealing.

That is why when we had Bill S-8 before committee, New Democrats proposed that a clause be inserted that required regulations to come back before the House and referred to the appropriate committee, so there would be some parliamentary oversight. Otherwise, there would be no parliamentary oversight.

There is a precedent for it because in 2003 or 2004, the Quarantine Act had a clause that had the regulations come back before the appropriate committee.

Under the clause opting into the first nations election act, pursuant to section 3(1)(b), the minister may order a first nation to use the first nations elections act in circumstances where the minister is satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised the governance of that first nation. What qualifies as leadership dispute in the first instance, let alone a protracted leadership dispute? There is no definition, no qualifiers around that.

Under what circumstances is there significantly compromised governance? This section is extremely subjective and at the sole discretion of the minister there is a potential that any first nation could be forced to use the first nations election act if chief and council cannot agree on issues such as budgets, funding, housing and so on, on what the minister may consider to be a timely basis.

On the opting out piece, opting out of the first nations election act, while it is simple for a first nation to be added to the first nations election act, being removed from its operation is a far more complex undertaking. To be removed from the act, a first nation must satisfy a number of specific requirements and the minister “may”, not “shall”, remove the first nation from the operations of the act.

The key requirement that must be satisfied includes establishing a new election code that is approved by a majority of the majority of the voters. The code must include amendment procedures and there can be no outstanding charges under the act against any member of the first nation. Even if these requirements are met, it still remains at the minister's discretion as to whether the transfer out of the act will be approved or not. Therefore, we again caution first nations already using a custom election code or regulation, their customary powers should be guarded and protected jealously since it may be difficult to regain these customary powers once a first nation opts into the first nations elections act.

I mentioned earlier the appeals procedure. When I quoted Article 18 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it indicated that representatives needed to choose their own procedures as well as maintain their own indigenous decision-making institutions. The appeal procedure is problematic in this act.

Under sections 30 to 35 of the proposed legislation, there is only one way to appeal an election: apply to either the Federal Court of the court of Queen's bench for a review of the election. The only ground available to overturn an election is to prove that a provision of the legislation or regulations was contravened and the contravention was likely to affect the outcome of the election. Internal appeal mechanisms are not provided for.

Using the courts is a costly and time-consuming process. The legislation does not provide for funding of these appeals to the court. Therefore, only applicants who can afford to hire a lawyer are likely to pursue an appeal. Further, appeals to the courts can be time-consuming and may take months for an appeal to be dealt with. On a side note, we only have to look to what is going on currently with various alleged misdemeanours, or perhaps outright fraud, under the current Canada Elections Act and the amount of time it takes for that process to unfold. We are going to see the same kind of process when it comes to forcing first nations to resort to the courts in order to sort some of this out.

On the other hand, if the regulations are to provide that the first nations will fund appeals or if courts make a practice that all or most appeals will be funded or paid for by the first nations, significant expenses may be incurred by first nations following every election. Many, if not most, custom election codes or regulations provide for some form of internal appeal process that will allow first nations members to file and have heard an appeal or grievance in regard to an election, usually without the need to hire a legal counsel. These processes will allow for most members with a grievance to participate in the appeal process if so inclined.

Further, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the aggrieved member may still choose to pursue the matter to court. That is, most of the existing custom election codes and regulations provide or allow for both an internal appeal process and a court-driven appeal. The proposed legislation only provides for the courts to be the final arbiter of election disputes. That is an enormous problem. It would seem perfectly reasonable, and again I go back to the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, that indicated dispute resolution mechanisms needed to be developed by the first nations themselves. It would seem a perfectly reasonable approach to take.

I referenced clause No. 41 earlier in my speech about the problem with having regulations developed essentially without input and without any oversight.

In addition, we proposed another amendment with regard to Bill S-8, which would be an appropriate amendment for this legislation with regard to looking at whether there would be unintended consequences with legislation.

With respect to Bill S-8, we proposed that within five years after the act came into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the act and of the regulations made under this act would have to be undertaken by such committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons as may be designated and so on.

The purpose of having some sort of five year review would be to look at what was happening with the regulations and also to look at whether the act was achieving its intended objective.

We heard from other members who spoke in the House about the fact that the legislation would provide stability in the communities and add to economic development opportunities.

I was first elected in 2004 and was in constant election mode. I understand the challenges for chiefs and councils when they are in two year election terms. It is not a reasonable period of time to develop and implement an agenda and to look at some of the results of it. If the government had just stuck to the four year term in the legislation, we would have had no problems supporting the bill, but it had to stick in other mechanisms.

I want to turn briefly to testimony that was heard in the Senate with regard to objections to the bill, and I want to refer to Derek Nepinak, the grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I will read some of his testimony before the Senate. I have no idea how much time we will have when the bill gets to committee, because time allocation has become a way of doing business here. I do not even know if we will have time to have witnesses before committee. Chief Nepinak said:

Regarding clause 3(1)(a), we know already that the development of custom codes in our communities and the passages of them requires a double majority vote, meaning that we need to hold a referendum which includes a majority of the electors, as well as a majority passing the customary code. That double majority is reflective of the ability and willingness of our community members to participate in governance processes. I think that this bill undermines that somewhat in allowing a chief and council to move a resolution to opt into this new legislation. I think that is problematic because it excludes members of the community.

I have concern with respect to the phrase “protracted leadership dispute”. I am not quite sure what that means. I find the term overly ambiguous. It opens up a broader discretion for the minister to impose Bill S-6 on a community that might not otherwise wish to be part of the new legislation.

He goes on to outline a number of other clauses. Then he goes on to say:

Speaking broadly with respect to clauses 30 to 35 on contested elections, the chiefs in Manitoba supported the resolution to move forward in the discussion on the basis that we would discuss a process of tribunals or regional tribunals to engage the challenges resulting in our elections. I think it is fundamental to the self-determining efforts of communities to be able to engage their conflicts, be able to engage conflict, and to make difficult choices. I believe it is in the form of a tribunal...that...really come to the surface...the form of a decision-making body with authority—that our values and our systems of decision making...We can really show, and once again redevelop, those systems that were once there. I believe we need to be shown the respect and given the room to develop these tribunals so that we can adjudicate these matters within our systems. I believe that is a critical piece of the legislation that is missing.

I want to quote Ms. Cook-Searson, who also was before the Senate. She said:

I just wanted to comment on the question...One of my points was that we should have an independent First Nations electoral commission or a First Nations tribunal to settle any election disputes because it is afforded already for the federal government, the provincial governments. You have mechanisms in place where it is part of the regular part of democracy. If it is good for the federal government and the provincial governments, why is it not good for First Nations? Why not an option for a truly independent electoral commission? I do agree there will be disputes and you do need a mechanism to deal with them. However, rather than go through the minister or the cabinet or through the courts, we could have this independent First Nation electoral commission or First Nations tribunal to settle any election disputes.

Ms. Cook-Searson raises a really valid point. Elections Canada is doing its job currently about some allegations with respect to members of the House. Why do first nations not have access to the same kind of process?

I will end on that note. I hope the government will entertain some amendments to the legislation.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for his input on this piece of legislation and, of course, for the great work that he does on the aboriginal affairs committee.

There is one specific clause in the bill that I want to ask the member about, clause 41, which provides for governor-in-council to make regulations.

We just finished with Bill S-8 on safe drinking water, which was all about making regulations. The concern that was raised under Bill S-8, and I am sure it will be raised under Bill S-6, is the fact that there is no rigorous provision for first nations to be involved in making regulations. In fact, the NDP proposed an amendment to Bill S-8 that would see regulations come back before the House and tabled to the appropriate committee so that there would be parliamentary oversight.

Could the member comment on the fact that there is no provision in this piece of legislation for first nations to be involved in the development and implementation of regulations?

The House resumed from June 6, consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the third time and passed.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak in support of Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

I would like to begin by describing, perhaps for those who have not yet heard, the framework of this and how we arrived at this place tonight in debating this bill. In Canada, water and waste water operations and systems are generally the responsibility of the provincial and territorial governments. Over the years, different jurisdictions have developed comprehensive regulatory regimes for the protection of source water, water quality standards, and the oversight of water treatment plants and water delivery services.

Over the time that Canada has been growing as a nation, we have, in our various communities, learned from our mistakes. For example, most tragically, Walkerton, which is in my own province. Therefore, the provinces and territories have developed a highly regarded set of regulations across the country which serves the majority of Canadians very well. Of course, it guides the infrastructure that is necessary to provide for safe drinking water and water services.

However, because section 91, paragraph 24 of the Constitution Act of 1867 grants to the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for Indians”, provincial regulatory water standards do not apply to on-reserve first nations communities. To date, there has been no federal legislative framework governing drinking water and waste water in first nations communities beyond what is set out in a welter of public federal policies, administrative guidelines and funding arrangements.

We have to ask ourselves here tonight, and Canadians across the country have to ask: Why is it that after almost 150 years, since Confederation, first nations are the only Canadians who do not have proper and healthy regulations for drinking water and waste water?

I must say that when I speak to my constituents about first nations issues, I always begin by explaining to them how complex it is, the lengthy history we have of relationships with our first nations, and what a diversity of views there are. Chief among them has been the constant question of first nations sovereignty, to what degree the Government of Canada can deal with first nations on a local, regional or national basis, and who is responsible for what.

Determining roles and responsibilities is a problem. There are three federal departments involved, and I am just going to mention one of them when it comes to drinking water and waste water, and that is Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. It provides funding, including funds for capital construction, upgrading and a portion of operating and maintenance costs.

How much funding? Well, 80% of first nations' operating and capital costs is paid by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to first nations for the provision of water services to their communities. It also oversees the design, construction and maintenance of water facilities. However, first nation communities, through their chiefs and councils, are responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of water systems, and they assume 20% of the costs.

Where has that taken us?

Well, reports have been done over the years, but I think at this point it is fairly notorious that waste water and drinking water conditions on reserves have been in very poor shape.

In fact, there was an inspection done in 2011 of 587 first nations communities across the country, 97% of all first nations communities. It was found that of the assessed water systems, 39% were at high overall risk, 34% were medium and 27% were low overall risk.

At that time, it was estimated that the cost to upgrade existing water and waste water systems to meet federal protocols and guidelines, as well as provincial standards and regulations, would be $1.08 billion. Is it the case that the Government of Canada, after all these years has not been willing to spend the money necessary? No, that is not the case. That is not where the problem lies. In fact, between 2006 and 2014, the life of the present government, the government will have invested approximately $3 billion to support first nations communities in managing their water and waste water infrastructure and related public health activities.

Let me repeat that so that listeners at home do not think they misheard. Three billion dollars in eight years to really do what the report suggested would cost $1.08 billion. In spite of that, we hear continued calls from the opposition for more funding.

I will not pretend to know what the value of a billion dollars is. It reminds me, if memory serves me, of a Liberal minister who a few years ago was taken to task for saying “What's a million?” Today, the refrain from across the aisle is, “What's a billion?” In fact, what is $3 billion?

In light of the fact that we have been at this 150 years, and particularly acutely in the last 10 years, and particularly having spent $3 billion in the last seven or eight years alone, we still have these problems, we have to look elsewhere. We have to start elsewhere to solve this problem.

The government has gone at it with a willing heart. Bill S-8 was introduced in Parliament on February 29, 2012, to provide for the development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in first nations communities. The bill would also establish that federal regulations may incorporate by reference provincial regulations governing drinking water and waste water in first nations communities.

The reality is, water is water and health needs are health needs and all Canadians, all citizens of the country, including first nations, should enjoy the benefit of the same minimum standards. There is no reason why those standards cannot apply in first nations. It is true, first nations would be responsible for implementing them, but only responsible for 20% of the cost. The government is more than prepared to come up with the other 80% and to oversee and supervise the implementation of these standards.

However, this is not the first time. That is what really makes it frustrating. The member who spoke last talked about a lack of political will. Well indeed, that is what we are witnessing here tonight if we do not pass the bill because it has been tried before.

Bill S-11 in the previous Parliament was introduced in the Senate on May 26, 2010. It was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for examination in December of 2010. From February to March, the committee held nine meetings on the proposed legislation and heard witnesses and listened to ideas. However, unfortunately, thanks again to the opposition and the bringing down of the last Parliament and the provoking of an election, Bill S-11 died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 2011.

Bill S-8 does retain several of the features of the former Bill S-11, but there are key differences. It would be beyond the scope of my time to go into those.

I just have to say that the delivery of safe drinking water to on-reserve first nations is critical to the health and safety of the communities' residents. Access to safe, clean, potable water is also closely tied to the economic viability of individual communities.

It is up to this Parliament to just take this step. We would do more. This would not be the end of it. However, let us at least get off the ground with this step forward. I urge the members opposite to support this bill.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this particular bill today.

All of the government members have talked about two things. One is regulation, which is what they say this bill is all about, and the second is that they say that implementation will come later.

In other words, what they are saying is they will impose the rules, but they are not going to follow up or carry on or commit to ensuring that any funding is there to make that happen. Therefore, it is destined for failure.

I do not know why the government did not put just one little clause in this bill that said, “Here are the regulations as we see them, and this is what we think needs to be done”.

By the way, although there is some provincial jurisdiction, it is hard to argue with regulations that talk about the training and certification of operators, source water protection, location, design, modification, maintenance, operation of water systems, drinking water distribution by truck if it is needed, the collection and treatment of waste water, monitoring, sampling, testing. No one can argue with that, whether it is a first nations municipality or a non-first nations municipality. Those kinds of things make sense.

Of course, at any given time in this country, we have more than 100 first nations on boil water advisories, and that situation continues.

Here we have regulations that are not followed up with any kind of commitment from the government. That is where the main part of the problem lies with this particular bill.

Why did the government not put a clause in the bill that simply says, “Here are the implementation rules. This is what we think needs to happen. By the way, we will ensure that this is funded to make sure that 100-plus first nations across this country do not have boil water advisories, and in fact that boil water advisories will not exist anywhere in this country any longer. We will ensure that all first nations have all the regulations in place and, by the way, we are going to back it up with money.”

We heard Conservative after Conservative say that they will pass the regulations and worry about the money and the implementation later. It seems to me that a lot of red flags should go up with all Canadians right across the country when they hear that.

Let me read a couple of quotes from first nations groups as to what they think about this bill, because the red flags have certainly gone up with first nations.

The Chiefs of Ontario recently had a headline on a news release that said, “Federal Bill S-8 fails to 'protect' drinking water for first nations”.

Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which I am very familiar with, is in northern Ontario, and by the way, many communities are fly-in communities, so I am not sure how this partnering thing that a previous member was talking about is going to work. The headline from there reads, “Water Legislation Fails to Address Critical Lack of Infrastructure in NAN First Nations”.

Dr. Harry Swain, the chair of the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations, stated:

This is not...one of those problems in Aboriginal Canada that will persist for ever and ever and ever. This is one that can be solved and it can be solved with the application of a good chunk of money for a limited period of time.

The end of that quote puts it all in a nutshell for us. We are not talking about money forever; we are talking about money spent, and if these regulations are the regulations that the government thinks need to be established, let us make sure the funding is there.

However, there is no commitment for funding at all.

The regulations, by and large, are the same kinds of regulations that non-first nations municipalities have right across Canada, and they are mostly governed by the provinces.

I asked a question of a government speaker earlier today. I asked what it is going to cost the provinces to monitor and implement this measure. The response was that it is not going to cost the provinces anything. I am not entirely sure, but we are going to have to take that speaker at his word. It is something to think about as we carry on this debate.

Sometimes people say that it is not about money and that we should not worry about money, because it is about regulations and making drinking water safe. The fact of the matter is that we have to commit to spend the money to make that happen.

I see some heads nodding “no” on the other side. I hope the member has a question for me later on.

We cannot put regulations in place in communities that in some cases have absolutely no infrastructure for water delivery and or for handling waste water and expect them to say, “Let us follow the regulations; no problem, we can do that”. How do they do it?

I would be interested to hear what my hon. friend across the way has to say about that.

There is another issue here, which is that these regulations could very well overrule any laws or bylaws that a first nation might have in its own community.

I think that is a concern. It limits the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of its duties under the regulations.

I think not just New Democrats but all of us want to see safe, clean water and water systems that work for first nation communities, but imposing this legislation is not the solution. The federal government cannot simply unload its liability to first nations without providing the funding to bring those systems up to the new standards in the bill.

First nations oppose this act because of the new liability provisions for first nation governments. My hon. friend across the way said that the non-derogation clause is formulated to possibly be the first step to erode constitutionally protected rights. These things are not spelled out in black and white in the bill, but they are concerns that first nations have.

The delivery of safe drinking water to on-reserve first nations communities is critical to the health and safety of first nations Canadians, but for more than a decade, many first nations have lacked adequate access to safe drinking water.

As a bit of history, this is the second legislative initiative to address safe drinking water on reserves. The predecessor was Bill S-11, but it did not proceed to third reading as a result of widespread concerns. Because it did not proceed, it subsequently died when Parliament was dissolved before the last election.

Bill S-8 retains a number of features from Bill S-11, particularly in the areas to be covered by eventual federal regulations. Non-derogation language is still included in the proposed legislation, expressly allowing for the abrogation or derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights in some circumstances. It also provides for the incorporation by reference of provincial regulations governing drinking and waste water.

Why are we opposing the bill at this point in time? New Democrats agree that the poor standards of water systems in first nation communities are hampering people's health and well-being and causing economic hardship. However, this legislation would make first nations liable for water systems that have already proven inadequate without any funding to help them improve their water systems or to give them the ability to build new ones more appropriate to their needs.

I see my time is up. I certainly welcome questions from the floor. Let me just say in closing that this is a very important bill, and I hope that someone from the other side is going to ask me a question about the implementation of this bill, should it pass.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

Let me point out a few unfortunate facts. At this time, over 117 aboriginal communities have no access to running water and waste water treatment. I can guarantee that if this was happening in one of our municipalities, this Parliament would be up in arms. Imagine 117 members of parliament seeing one of their white communities deprived of water. They would not stand for that.

Unfortunately, these 117 communities have no water. They will continue having no water, and the only reason I can think of to explain this situation in a country like ours does not make me happy. I am proud of my country, but this is humiliating. If these were not aboriginal, first nations and Indian communities, they would have gotten their water long ago. This is called racism, and it does not do us credit.

The reasons for opposing Bill S-8 are self-evident. This bill affects thousands of homes with no running water and no sewage treatment and 117 communities lacking the basic necessities. Sadly, this has gone on for decades.

It is not rocket science. It will take 10 years and $4.5 billion. Yet, all this government offered was $330 million, and then it attached all kinds of conditions to it. That is the problem. That is the crux of the matter. We, as Canadians, need to understand that that is why people are rejecting this legislation.

Every member in the House wants first nations to have access to drinking water. The question is how to make that happen. Considering the proposed approach, we have to wonder how sincere they are about all Canadians—and they are Canadians—having the same rights. The right to water is essential, as is the right to air. We cannot just do without.

Not only do we need to invest in the technical aspects, but if we really want to address the issue of drinking water once and for all, we need to give them both the technical abilities and the resources to maintain the water system. We need to address expertise and technological culture along with the economics of it.

Obviously, there is no way they can bring in engineers from Montreal or Toronto, or plumbers from Thunder Bay, Fort Chimo, the Laurentians or the Gaspé every time there is a problem or every time something breaks.

These are nations, and a nation must have the proper technological abilities to address truly essential issues. Drinking water supply is certainly an essential issue. That is what it means to be a nation. Being a nation means having the ability to create, develop and manage appropriate laws so that citizens have access to water. If we want to give them nation status—without treating them like simple-minded children—we need to take action.

As a French Canadian, I have been called a white nigger by an MP. It was odd for 2012.

I am putting myself in their shoes. I have seen them in the Standing Committee on Finance. They said that the suicide rate where they live is staggering. It is not that more people commit suicide, it is that they do not have the social services to cope with people who are suicidal.

I saw the premier of a territory beg the committee. She said that people were dropping like flies. I saw committee members behave in a condescending manner. If I were that person, I might not have remained so polite. She did remain polite and I seriously wonder if she made a mistake. She might have been better off blowing a gasket. She might have been better off saying enough is enough.

Aboriginal demonstrations were held. People said they would like to be able to live and that that was not too much to ask. Not having enough water or the necessary means to obtain it is an economic consequence. Aboriginal communities are not rolling in money, despite what some might think. Aboriginal communities are not full of multi-millionaires. That is just an urban legend. It is odd that urban legends are often about an ethnic community, particularly when that community is a visible minority.

I see Canada as an extremely generous and great country. I think that is an accurate assessment for the most part. We have helped peoples in the past and we have been quite generous. When Europe was oppressed, we sacrificed tens of thousands of our own. We spared no expense. However, when it comes to aboriginals, that generosity disappears.

One of the problems with this bill is that it calls for a lot of sacrifices. Aboriginal peoples are being asked to give up some of their rights in exchange for access to water. It is hard to build the concept of nationhood when you are forced to give up your rights as a nation. It does not stop there, however. The bill would force aboriginal peoples to give up their rights in exchange for maybe one day getting drinking water. This is a prime example of the government not walking the talk. The government keeps talking about it, but the water is not there. That is a problem.

The government cannot say that this will be resolved in 10 years. I challenge any member here to say that they would wait 10 years before giving drinking water to a neighbourhood in their city or municipality. Any politician knows that that that is not the way to go if you want to be re-elected. Unfortunately, first nations members often do not vote. If they did, there would be far fewer MPs in this government. This kind of moral misconduct is unacceptable.

Bill S-8 should not be defeated just because it is a bad bill for first nations, even though that is true. Bill S-8 should not be defeated just because it is a bad bill technically. That is also true. The bill should also be defeated because if we want to remain Canadian and remain a generous nation and a great people, this bill must be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, because it stands to benefit all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

As other members of the House have explained, the legislation that is before us now would actually lead to the development of systems governing water quality in first nations communities. These systems are badly needed and would promote and protect the health and well-being of all Canadians, regardless of where they live. Surely, the urgent health and safety needs alone are enough reason that the opposition should be supporting Bill S-8.

For those who do not believe that the health and safety of first nations people are more important than the perceived challenges we have heard about tonight from the opposition, I want to outline even more valuable reasons why they need to be supporting this very important legislation. The simple fact is that the quality of the water that is accessed by all other Canadians who do not live on reserves is protected by law, by provincial, territorial and municipal regulations that dictate maximum levels of contamination and a lot of other standards. However, no such regulations exist to protect water quality in first nations communities, which I think a lot of people in Canada would find shocking, and this legislation is overdue.

It is simply unacceptable that these communities do not have the ability in 2013 to put enforceable water standards in place that are going to protect the health and safety of the people who live in their communities. I am sure that all reasonable people and all Canadians would agree. In fact, my own mother called me last night and asked me why the opposition would not be in favour of a bill that supports clean drinking water for first nations people. That is incomprehensible to most Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to point out that Bill S-8 is the direct result of seven years of collaboration. We often hear that there has not been enough time and there is not enough money. There is never enough time and money to satisfy everyone, but that is no reason not to act.

This bill would enable co-operation to happen between first nations and other jurisdictions, such as provinces, territories and municipalities, when it passes. It was ably explained by my colleagues earlier today, but this legislation would authorize the creation of regulatory systems through a collaborative process so that representatives from first nations could work with their counterparts from nearby communities and the federal government to design, develop and implement regulations around drinking water.

Laws currently used to regulate drinking water of nearby communities could provide a template, a starting point for these discussions about what the new regime would look like and how it would apply. Existing regulations could then be adapted to suit the circumstances of every individual first nation community. It is not one size fits all. These communities are different, and they need to be treated that way. They will find different solutions. I am convinced that this really is a process that would lead to new partnerships between first nations and their nearby communities, which will, in turn, benefit all Canadians.

Fostering collaboration between first nations and non-first nations communities is very important and actually generates social, economic, cultural and recreational opportunities. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Strong partnerships already exist between many first nations and non-first nations communities across Canada. It is no coincidence that often the partnerships between first nations and non-first nations are among the most prosperous in the country. That is right; these partnerships could help first nations become among the most prosperous in the country.

Part of the wisdom behind the approach is that it strives to inspire a lot more of these partnerships to take place. The best partnerships are unique because they meet the specific needs and interests of both parties involved. When we consider the kinds of partnerships that Bill S-8 might inspire, it is important that we keep an open mind. That is why the legislation before us rejects the one-size-fits-all, top-down model. That is not what we would create here. We would create a bottom-up model, where the parties themselves would be encouraged to design a system that would meet their own individual circumstances and needs.

I will now turn the attention of my hon. colleagues to some of the kinds of partnerships that already exist between first nations and other jurisdictions. The most common is a formal arrangement with a municipality for services, and that might be treatment and distribution of drinking water, sewage treatment, fire protection, recreation and animal control. These are known as municipal-type agreements or MTAs.

The national assessment of first nations water and waste water systems lists 95 water and 91 waste water MTAs that already exist between municipalities and first nations communities. The vast majority of these are in B.C., my own home province of Alberta and Ontario. While the MTAs will differ from one to another, all of them strive for mutual benefits for all the parties.

To get a better sense of the potential benefits, look no further than a guide published last year by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The federation administers a program that helps municipalities partner with first nations on community infrastructure, and it really works. Here is a bit of an excerpt from the guide:

First nations and municipal governments across Canada often face similar challenges when working to build and maintain infrastructure, create economic opportunities, enhance social conditions, and improve quality of life in their communities. Economies of scale, and the increasing expense of providing, operating and maintaining community infrastructure, naturally lead to a consideration of partnerships when addressing infrastructure issues. By forming partnerships, sharing knowledge and expertise, and pooling assets, First Nations and municipal governments have the potential to improve existing community infrastructure and services.

That makes a lot of sense. The phrase “economies of scale” really helps describe the principal advantage of most municipal-type agreements. Another phrase for it is “many hands make light work”. When we work together, jobs are easier. When everyone pitches in, tasks are manageable. A small community partnering with a large community often helps that small community get access to higher quality services than it might be able to afford on its own. It can also free the smaller community from having to deal solely with the regulatory burden associated with some of these responsibilities.

It is very clear that this legislation now before the House must also be seen as a central component of a larger, multi-faceted strategy to improve the quality of drinking water that is available for our first nations communities. This strategy includes investments in first nations drinking water and waste water infrastructure, operator training and other elements of capacity development.

Should it become law, these investments would continue during the collaborative processes that would create the regulations for first nations drinking water. They would be phased in as first nations acquired the capacity and expertise to meet them. This incremental approach is a great one. It would help all parties understand their role in the process.

The development of regulatory standards represents a really major first step toward ensuring that what we all take for granted, quality drinking water, is accessible to residents of first nations communities and that it meets the high quality all Canadians expect and deserve.

We urge the opposition to support this legislation. It would allow the government to work with first nations and other stakeholders to develop these regulations and ultimately, through the proposed legislation, strengthen our first nations communities and make them better able to participate equally in, and contribute fully to, Canada's prosperity.

I urge all my hon. colleagues here today to seriously look at Bill S-8 and the opportunities it would provide for first nations, and join me in supporting it.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill S-8 today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, so I am very familiar with this legislation. It is important legislation, necessary legislation, and legislation that I am proud to stand here and support.

One of the things that often gets lost in this debate, and I have heard over and over again at committee, is the misunderstanding of what this legislation actually is designed to do. We often hear from members on the opposite side of the House who say that the bill does not do this or does not do that.

It is not designed to be a panacea. It is not designed to solve every single problem. It is designed to solve one specific issue that was raised by the expert panel, and that is the need for regulations to set safe drinking water standards. The panel recommended other things as well, but that was one of the key issues that the experts said needed to be moved forward. That is why this legislation is so important. It would give the authority to enact regulations to ensure we have standards consistent to allow for safe drinking water. Safe drinking water is important, and we know that. It is a huge issue.

The issues that we have with first nations communities are varied and many. We have geographical challenges and different circumstances. They are complex. We have to find ways to filter water to remove contaminants, and we have to find ways to deal with waste water.

A lot of these issues are faced by non-aboriginal communities across Canada. And, what is the number one tool that they will use to ensure that they have safe drinking water? It is a system of regulation that is designed to ensure that treated water is up to certain standards, and that is why this legislation is so important. Right now, there are no legally enforceable standards to regulate both water and waste water on most first nations communities. There are some self-governing first nations that do, and they have established and enforced water quality regimes, but they are the exception and not the rule. Bill S-8 would help to turn that exception into the rule.

People have come to the committee and said that the legislation could do this or that, and it might transfer some liability to first nations. I remind them that is because this is enabling legislation. The legislation does not say “it shall” do this or that. What it says is, here is a list of things that may end up being regulated. It would give the authority to engage in a comprehensive discussion with first nations communities with respect to regulations that need to be in place to suit each community. We always have to remember that this is enabling legislation.

We have a strategy on safe drinking water, and there are three pillars: continuing investments in water and waste water infrastructure, developing enforceable standards and protocols, and enhancing capacity building and operator training. We just heard the member for Winnipeg North ask a question about capacity. Of course, we have invested a significant amount in capacity through the circuit rider training program, which is a fantastic program that is making big differences.

When we talk about some of the issues surrounding capacity, we can say that seven years ago only a small minority of first nations had water systems that had trained and certified operators. There were very few. The progress is clear. By 2011, the national assessment found that operators with the appropriate level of certification managed 51% of first nations water systems and 42% of first nations waste water systems. Therefore, we have gone from a few to 51% and 42%. That is a significant increase.

A year later, annual performance inspections of the same systems had determined that these percentages had increased to 60.1% and 53.9%. Yes, it is not 100%, we want it to be at 100%, but we are getting there. Properly trained operators will ensure that the systems comply with regulations and consistently produce clean and reliable drinking water.

We are looking at all of these things. They do not operate in a vacuum; we have to have the regulations. That was raised by the expert panel. We have to have skilled operators. We are making those investments. We also have to have investments in the infrastructure that is necessary to produce the safe water and the drinking water and the waste water. That is why we have invested close to $3 billion in waste water and drinking water systems since 2006. Those investments are making a real difference.

However, not only are we making those investments, we are making the right investments. Why are we doing that? It is because we went forward with the most comprehensive review in the history of our country to look at water and waste water systems. It is a review that was not done by the previous government. We did that. We wanted to know which systems needed to have those investments. Systems are rated as high risk, medium risk and low risk. Therefore, we can prioritize where the investments need to be. Look at the high risk ones. Let us work on those first. We look at this as a multi-faceted approach, one that is going to make a significant difference.

When we look at the regulations, we want time to do that. We are saying we are going to take time and develop them in consultation with first nations to make sure that we have the right regulations to ensure we have safe drinking water and properly treated waste water.

Some people have said “Wait a minute, where is the money? We cannot impose these regulations without money.” Well, I say, how does one build a house without knowing what the designs are? Someone does not just go up and say, “I want a house. Here's the money.” They have to actually design the house. That is what the regulations do. They are designing. They are saying these are the regulations that need to be in place. Once they know what those regulations are, then they can figure out what it is going to cost to implement those regulations. That is exactly the process we are following. We are going to develop the regulations, in consultation with first nations, and then we are going to figure out what, if any, funding arrangements need to change.

Seven years ago, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations agreed to work together on drinking water. Today, the House has the opportunity to support this collaboration by endorsing Bill S-8. Surely, residents of first nations communities have waited long enough to have these regulations brought forward and put in place. We want to move forward with this and I am hoping that we are going to have the support of all parties in the House to make sure that we can move forward with regulations that will help bring safe drinking water and waste water to first nations communities.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to stand in this House and speak in support of Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

This proposed legislation is a key part of a collaborative, comprehensive plan to improve the quality of water available to first nation communities. The bill includes a mechanism to establish regulatory regimes to safeguard water quality. These regimes, typically under provincial law, exist in every community in this country, except first nation communities. While the primary goal of these regimes is to establish water treatment and water quality standards to protect the health and safety of Canadians, they also serve to protect the sizeable investments made in infrastructure, such as the treatment facilities and distribution networks that serve these communities.

Bill S-8 strives to ensure that first nations communities can access the same benefits that regulations afford other communities: safe drinking water, with efficient treatment and distribution facilities that function effectively throughout their entire operational life cycles.

To fully appreciate the importance of this bill, we must also understand the other parts of this plan, in particular the investments in infrastructure.

Our government continues to invest a significant amount of resources in the infrastructure needed to deliver safe drinking water to residents of first nation communities. In fact, between 2006 and 2013-14, our government will have invested approximately $3 billion. These investments are supporting first nations to fund a variety of projects, including installations of new systems, repairs to aging systems and the replacement of components. The projects have involved all aspects of water systems and waste water infrastructure, such as treatment facilities, pumping stations, storage tanks and piping networks. These investments are helping these communities meet their needs.

A closer look at a few of the projects supported by these investments demonstrates the very tangible impact they have on these communities and the people who live there. Let us consider the four first nations of St. Theresa Point, Wasagamack, Red Sucker Lake and Garden Hill in the Island Lake region of east-central Manitoba.

Providing safe drinking water has long been a challenge in this region, for several reasons. Until the late 1990s, diesel generators represented the only source of electricity in Island Lake communities. Local geography in the Island Lake region creates a second challenge. The community sits on the hard, mostly bare rock of the Canadian Shield, making it difficult and expensive to install and maintain pipes to distribute water to each home. A few homes have indoor plumbing and bathrooms, which are amenities that have to be added to take full advantage of an integrated water and waste water system. Addressing these challenges has required careful planning and considerable investments.

Since April 1, 2006, the government has made investments of $50 million to improve and maintain water and waste water systems in these communities. Major investments include over $26 million for a piped-water distribution and sewage collection system at Garden Hill, and nearly $10 million for a water treatment plant, two water trucks and a sewage truck at Red Sucker Lake.

Today, residents of the four first nations access drinking water through a hybrid system of pipes, cisterns, tanks, standpipes and a fleet of trucks. Work on these projects continues this year. To help the first nations plan and implement further improvements, the Government of Canada has also provided resources for feasibility studies.

According to Chief Alex McDougall of Wasagamack First Nation, the projects have had a dramatic impact on Island Lake communities. In his words, and I quote: “It means a healthier and cleaner environment, clean drinking water for the entire family.... This has been a true effort to work together, and that relationship needs to continue to be nurtured”.

Similar results are being achieved in dozens of first nation communities across Canada. Earlier this year, Marcel Colomb First Nation, located about 600 kilometres northwest of Island Lake, opened a new water treatment system, thanks to a Government of Canada investment of more than $8 million.

We are investing more than $2 million to support the design and construction of a pumphouse and water storage tank for Bouctouche First Nation in New Brunswick. An investment of a similar amount led to last year's completion of upgrades to a water treatment system that serves both the Gitanmaax Band and the village of Hazelton. These two communities in northwest British Columbia have a long history of co-operation and share a number of services, including water storage and distribution and waste disposal.

The last project I will mention today involves Wasauksing First Nation, located near Parry Sound, Ontario. Thanks in part to a government investment of more than $16 million, this first nation has a new water treatment system that takes into account local geography and hydrology.

The system includes a new intake and low-lift pumping station, a slow sand filtration system treatment plant, an elevated water reservoir and a delivery truck and heated garage. The project created 15 temporary jobs for members of the first nation and three full-time permanent positions for two plant operators and one driver.

These are just a few of the numerous first nations drinking water and waste water projects our government has supported over the last seven years. The project's aim is to improve the health and safety of community residents. To ensure that these systems can continuously produce safe drinking water, they must be supported by regulatory regimes that stipulate quality standards and treatment protocols. Until an appropriate accountability mechanism is in place, investments in water infrastructure will remain at risk. Bill S-8 proposes to establish these necessary accountability mechanisms.

Bill S-8 is an important part of a larger comprehensive strategy, built on three pillars, to improve the quality of drinking water in first nation communities. Along with the establishment of regulations and ongoing investments in infrastructure, the strategy calls for improvements in the training and certification of the men and women who operate first nations' water systems.

Our government invests approximately $10 million annually to train and certify these operators. In the last year alone, the number of certified operators of water and waste water facilities has increased by 10%. This is significantly increasing the water quality enjoyed by first nations across the country and is decreasing the risks associated with these water systems. This is in addition to funding the maintenance and operation of some 1,200 on-reserve water and waste water systems.

Our government will continue to make these investments so that residents of first nations communities can access safe, clean drinking water. Nevertheless, without the support of regulatory regimes, these investments and the health and safety of thousands of Canadians living on reserve will remain at risk. The regulations stemming from Bill S-8 will provide residents of first nation communities with the same level of confidence as other Canadians when it comes to their own drinking water.

I therefore ask all hon. colleagues on both sides of the House to stand up for first nations and those communities across the country and to join me in supporting this piece of legislation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I read Bill S-8. I can see that the regulation-making powers are extensive but without action to ensure that there is capacity in first nations communities, and there have been some expressions of concern from first nations, to make sure that there is money to make this work.

I cannot see anything wrong with Bill S-8 now that the egregious section that suggested that the bill might abrogate first nations treaty rights has been fixed. I accept that it has been fixed.

I am wondering if the hon. member knows if there is a larger plan and a commitment to funding to make the skeletal regulatory authorities in this bill result in clean water.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to explain to the opposition, and to Canadians, why I support Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, and why I urge my hon. colleagues to stop voting against a bill that would give first nations access to safe drinking water.

The solution at the heart of Bill S-8 is the product of more than seven years of engagement and discussion with a wide range of groups, including first nations, provinces, municipalities, parliamentary committees and organizations devoted to the science of drinking water.

Perhaps the best way to fully appreciate the considerable value of Bill S-8 is to trace its evolution.

In March 2006, our government, working with the Assembly of First Nations, announced the joint plan of action for drinking water in first nation communities. Among the five points in the plan of action was the development of an appropriate regulatory framework.

To help identify what the framework should consist of, the plan called for a panel of experts to be chosen by government and first nations officials. The expert panel held a series of hearings across Canada, in 9 locations in all, to hear from a total of 110 representatives from first nation communities, as well as other stakeholder groups. The panel also received and considered more than two dozen written submissions, most of them prepared by first nation communities and organizations. In its final report, the panel examined three regulatory options and provided valuable advice on the advantages and the disadvantages of each one.

The next step in Bill S-8's evolution occurred in 2009, when the Government of Canada held a series of engagement sessions with first nation groups. The sessions began in Whitehorse, Yukon, and continued in 12 other cities. The 13 engagement sessions attracted more than 500 participants representing first nations.

It is important to note that while work on a regulatory framework continued, our government continued to live up to the commitments it had made through the plan of action. Progress reports were tabled in Parliament, for instance, and budget 2008 invested approximately $330 million, over two years, in projects to improve drinking water in first nation communities. Budget 2009 included an additional $165 million per year, over two years, for first nation water and waste water infrastructure projects.

Our government is also committed to expanding the circuit rider training program and funding a national assessment of first nation water and waste water systems.

In 2010, the government introduced Bill S-11. A standing committee in the Senate held a series of hearings to review the proposed legislation and heard from 40 individual witnesses. Now, although this version of the bill died on the order paper in the initial review, it identified a number of challenges that have since been addressed.

In the interim, government officials continued to discuss regulatory options with first nation groups. Of particular note were the without prejudice discussions with regional first nation organizations across the country. It was during these without prejudice discussions that the first nations proposed a non-derogation clause that would resolve what was perceived to be a major problem with the previous version of Bill S-8. The problem involves the relationship between federal legislation and the constitutional rights of first nations.

The proposed clause would not prevent the government from justifying a derogation or abrogation of aboriginal or treaty rights if it were necessary to ensure the safety of first nations' drinking water.

A second significant development came in the summer of 2011 when our government published the national assessment of first nations water and waste water systems. I am proud to say that this was the most comprehensive examination of first nation water and waste water infrastructure in history.

This report shed a new light on the larger issues at play. The report found that many water systems in first nations communities had a high risk of failure to produce safe water if a problem were to arise. The report identified a need for clear guidelines and recommended the establishment of a regulatory framework for water and waste waster systems. This provided additional momentum to move ahead with the practical solutions.

Last year we introduced Bill S-8, a stronger version of its predecessor. There are several improvements worth noting, such as that the preamble in the proposed legislation explicitly states the government's intention to improve the health and safety of first nations and to work with first nations to develop drinking water regulations.

The new version includes a non-derogation clause that clearly addresses the relationship between the legislation and aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Clause 4.(1)(b) of the new version clarifies that any regulation on source water protection on first nation lands would be restricted so as to protect it from contamination.

The new version also clarifies that regulations could not include the power to allocate water supplies or to license users of water for any purpose other than for accessing drinking water.

There is new language to clarify that the regulations could confer to any person or body only the powers necessary to effectively regulate drinking water and waste water systems. Wording that was perceived to negate first nations authority over water on their lands has been deleted.

Another part of the previous version that has been removed is language that could be interpreted as powers to compel first nations into an agreement with third parties to manage water and the waste water on first nations lands.

Finally, Bill S-8 also features language to clarify that first nations would not be held liable for systems owned by third parties that are on first nations lands.

There have been many changes to this legislation since its last iteration in order to address the concerns raised by first nations, parliamentarians and other stakeholders. In fact, these changes respond directly to the concerns raised by first nations groups.

Moreover, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development recommended an amendment to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that further addresses concerns raised by first nations to remove the opt-in provision from the bill, demonstrating that our government is listening to first nations concerns and working to address them. I am pleased to see that the hard-working members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development agreed by removing this from the bill.

The proposed legislation now before the House has been informed by a comprehensive process of consultation, review and improvement.

Bill S-8 proposes an effective solution to a problem that continues to threaten the health and safety of residents of first nations communities. I hope that the opposition can recognize the urgent health and safety issues at stake here and support Bill S-8.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my speech.

We were talking about the Canadian government's desire to distance itself from highly contentious issues, such as the provision of services to Canadians, and also matters pertaining to drinking water and the upgrading of drinking water infrastructure.

That is why these clauses have been added and why a trend is emerging from this initiative and many others as well. We see that it is fragmented. The Canadian government is trying to gradually distance itself from highly contentious issues on which the national and international media have shone a rather unfavourable spotlight.

However, first and foremost, with respect to the provision of services to Canadians, we have seen that the government's priorities are clearly focused on natural resource extraction. In keeping with what my hon. colleague said, the government is pandering to its political base. That is why there will be cherry-picking and certain issues will be given priority in the Conservatives' hidden agenda.

Now, with regard to Bill S-8, the government is adding phrases such as “to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”. This type of phrase opens the door to the unilateral violation of aboriginal rights. That is extremely shameful and questionable. We know that aboriginal, treaty and other rights exercised by aboriginal peoples in Canada are enshrined in the Constitution. The fiduciary relationship also comes into play. Simply put, a fiduciary relationship necessarily implies that the first nations' interests will be the Canadian government's primary concern when it introduces legislation or plans to impose unilateral measures, such as those before the House.

This is enshrined in the Constitution and has been reiterated by the courts, including the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has taken a position on a specific case, it becomes immutable. In this case, the Supreme Court indicated that these obligations were associated with every initiative that could potentially interfere with the traditional and modern way of life of first nations peoples.

As a result, the moment the government considers or makes a decision, whether it is based on policy or what is actually happening on the ground, before doing anything to implement that decision, it must ensure that the decision does not in any way interfere with the traditional activities and way of life of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Therein lies the problem in most cases. The government is generally reluctant to hold consultations and seek public approval because it is a lot of work. What is more, we know that when public consultations are held, there is a good chance that people will not agree and that they will be fairly vocal about it. People will openly express their opinions. That is the concept behind direct democracy: the public is called upon to take a stand.

As the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou mentioned, when people are consulted, there is the possibility that they will not agree with what is being proposed. That is always one of the options that a person has. That person can simply say no and reject the measure that is being proposed, and that is a valid response.

Social acceptability often appears to be the desired outcome, because it confers prestige. This is not nearly as meaningful in 2013. It has been tarnished and taken over by industry. I would say that social acceptability is rather abstract and not something that ought to be pursued. It may well be that there is simply no acceptability and that people take a position against certain projects.

The Supreme Court clearly established that any infringement of aboriginal prerogatives must be seen in light of the methods preferred by aboriginal peoples to exercise their rights. It must also take into consideration the need to avoid any infringement of aboriginal rights to the greatest extent possible. There is nothing exhaustive about this list. I am just briefly listing a number of criteria. It also needs to include fair compensation in the event of expropriation and, lastly, it necessarily implies that there be consultations.

As I just mentioned, the issue of consultations is the sticking point in 2013. In the case of most, if not all of the statutes and legislative tools brought to my attention over the past two years I have sat in the House, the government has shown little desire to consult the aboriginal population in general.

The government seems content to have asked nine community leaders for their opinion. Turning to the 3,000 members of a community and being prepared to brave the storm is not exactly at the top of the Conservatives’ agenda in 2013. This is understandable, because public support is not necessarily in the cards. Some Conservative members have even been stopped from going into a Tim Hortons for a coffee in their own riding because the locals want to tear off their heads.

In short, the social and political conditions are not right for their policies, their approach and the directives coming from their backbench MPs.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the third time and passed.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a very quick look at my recent speeches in the House, and I noticed a common underlying thread in a large number of bills introduced in the House. I have already made at least three speeches this week that touched on the same subjects, the same common thread and the same trains of thought.

At the risk of being redundant, I want to point out that the government is gradually and stealthily trying to distance itself and step back from its obligations. This is evident with the introduction of both private members' and government bills that allow the government to gradually transfer its obligations to provide services to Canadians across the country. For example, it is delegating its obligation to deliver services to charities, which are not accountable. Bill S-8 is no different.

When I consider my brief experience here in the House and the many hours I have spent in committee, I come to the same conclusion. In reality, many initiatives that focus on “Indianness” and aboriginal issues seek to allow the government to opt out of its obligations and shift the burden it has because of the fiduciary relationship, among other things, onto the backs of third parties or band councils.

This relates to Bill S-8, which pertains to safe drinking water. I am thinking, in particular, of the First Nations Land Management Act. This initiative was brought forward to, ultimately, technically and officially, give first nations communities back a certain amount of control over land management and authorizations related to partial occupancy.

In reality, if a legal expert truly focused on the enactment and the letter of this law, he would clearly see that the burden shifts the moment an agreement is signed under the First Nations Land Management Act. The environmental liabilities—past, present and future—are then assumed by the band.

As a result, all the profiteering and negligence of successive governments over the years in relation to environmental monitoring, management and assessments just add to the negligence we are seeing in 2013. The results could be catastrophic. That is why the government is trying to opt out of these obligations. It is important to remember that the reclamation of a single parcel of land on a given reserve can easily cost $100,000. It depends on whether we are dealing with oil or other pollutants and contaminants.

The same reasoning applies in the case of Bill S-8. The government is simply shifting its obligations with regard to access to safe drinking water, infrastructure upgrades and water management and filtration onto the backs of first nations and band councils, which do not have enough funding to take on these sometimes costly responsibilities. I am just thinking about my community, which recently had to deal with contaminated water. There are huge costs associated with these types of problems.

An informed review of the proposed legislative initiative indicates that there are non-derogation clauses whose interpretation and application would open the door to the abrogation of ancestral and treaty rights.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Manicouagan.

I rise today to speak to Bill S-8. I had the opportunity to speak to this bill last November. I sat on the committee and I must say that the testimony from witnesses only reinforced the NDP's opinion that this is a flawed piece of legislation.

At the heart of this debate is a basic human right: the right to safe, affordable and adequate drinking water. Unfortunately, this is a challenge in many Canadian communities, including several first nations and Inuit communities.

Canada has such an abundance of water that it is hard to imagine that such problems could exist in such a developed country.

While the appropriate course of action is to develop safe, reliable systems in partnership with the communities in need, the Conservative government has chosen to legislate regulations that would force these communities to go it alone. In fact, this legislation seems more about pursuing a Conservative view of how first nations should be run than about dealing with the actual problem. It would create demands and conditions for first nations, yet it is predictably short on the resources that would allow these communities to comply.

Bill S-8 excuses the government from its primary obligations to first nations while subjecting them to substantial risk, significant financial burdens and a patchwork of provincial standards for the delivery of safe drinking water.

This bill fails miserably when it comes to the real challenge, which is helping first nations build the capacity that would allow them to do the work of administering water and waste water systems on their lands. It is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. In the case of communities that have been consistently asking for assistance for specific problems, they are getting rules and regulations instead of help with bricks and mortar.

The problems we have seen with flooding this spring in Kashechewan help illustrate this point. That community has been asking for help with waste water, which has been identified as problematic, since flooding in 2008. It has asked for assistance in developing storm sewers and with placing back-flow limiters on each house. Guess what? The government has consistently refused to step up, and this spring, homes in that community were inundated with backed-up raw sewage, which then forced the community to be evacuated. The minister tried to blame this on the lack of training, yet it was a company that was actually monitoring this.

On a larger scale, we can consider the testimony the committee heard from a municipal group that included the mayor of Maple Ridge and metro Vancouver's general manager of corporate services, both of whom sit on metro Vancouver's aboriginal relations committee. They reminded the committee that the report of the 2009 national assessment of first nations water and waste water estimated the cost to bring 618 individual first nations up to standard would be $4.7 billion, and it would take a decade. In addition to that, the cost to operate these improved systems would be $419 million a year.

The metro Vancouver delegation told us that local governments were concerned about this legislation's broad powers to delegate to any person or body any aspect of drinking water provision, monitoring and enforcement, which could have significant implications for local governments, as providers of utility services. It also highlighted areas of concern identified by local governments.

On that note, I want to tell the House that what we were hearing was that it may be very difficult to have municipal governments even wanting to assist first nations in hooking up to their systems because of the onerous aspects of this legislation.

Among their concerns were the following: there has been a lack of consultation and local government input; the transfer of responsibilities is unknown; the level of services is unclear; there are challenges with bylaw regulations and enforcement; there are legislative and jurisdictional uncertainties, which appear to be similar to the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act; regulatory authority over reserves is unclear; there is a need to clarify financial liabilities; there are unknown funding capacities; and there is a lack of an adequate implementation plan. Does that sound like legislation that is ready to roll out? I do not think so.

As I mentioned, the committee heard from many witnesses who spoke to the deficiencies in Bill S-8. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has made three submissions on this bill and its predecessor, Bill S-11. It echoed many of the criticisms of other witnesses and stated:

We remain alarmed and concerned with the federal government’s continued approach and insistence that legislation is the answer for First Nations. We question why the current Canadian Government must be compelled to legislate as opposed to doing what is humane and just by providing adequate resources to ensure comparable water systems as the rest of Canada.

It went on to state:

Trust is earned through respectful, reciprocal and honourable actions and good faith negotiations.

It added:

The creation of legislation and policy without seeking and meeting the realistic needs of First Nations will not create success or the accountability that government is seeking for its investments.

It is not for a lack of desire that first nations do not have appropriate systems to deliver safe drinking water or manage waste water. If there is a deficiency in the process, it is certainly related to being able to deliver on those desires.

I have heard from Whitefish River First Nation on this subject as well. In a letter to the minister, Chief Shining Turtle provided the government with some basic math that showed how flimsy the government's community infrastructure investment was, and also illustrated the incredible costs related to doing the kind of work that Bill S-8 would make mandatory for these communities.

Here is the math that I believe needs to be considered by all members. The government has committed $155 million over 10 years, so let us do the math. This comes out to about $15 million a year, divide that over 8 regions that INAC uses and it becomes $1.94 million a year per region. We are going down. Divide the $1.94 million over the Ontario region's 133 first nations and the total is $14,567.67 a year. How far will that go?

One more crucial number that has been provided is the cost per metre to construct water mains on the Whitefish River First Nation. It is $300 per metre.

While the government brags about the size of their investment in community infrastructure for first nations, in reality that money is only enough to build 48.5 metres of water main a year.

In addition to these problems, Bill S-8 regulations may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations governing drinking and waste water in first nations communities, but those regulations are not uniform, which could lead to unequal burdens for communities for what is primarily a federal responsibility.

The expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations expressed concern about using provincial regulations, claiming it would result in a patchwork of regulations leading to some first nations having more stringent standards than others.

In addition to that, the regulations in this bill would overrule any laws or bylaws made by first nations. Bill S-8 would also limit the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of their duties under the regulations the bill sets out.

As I mentioned at the outset, safe drinking water is a basic human right. The connection to health and economic well-being that flows from safe, dependable and affordable water cannot be dismissed, but this legislation is missing the mark entirely.

In addition to that, the bill would leave communities on the hook for existing problems they may not have created themselves. In those instances, if what these places really want is to start over in an attempt to get things right, the reality is they will be saddled with problem systems they have inherited.

It will make first nations liable for water systems that have already proven inadequate, but offers no funding to help them improve those deficient systems. Even if a first nation wants to build a replacement to better suit its needs, it will have to maintain its old, often costly systems at the same time.

Here is an example of how that will work. Constance Lake First Nation's water supply has been through a state of emergency. Its traditional water source was contaminated by blue-green alga, which resulted in a shutdown of its water treatment plant. It has drilled two new wells and has been off boil-water advisories for the first time in years, but also requires a new system to ensure quality and to meet its growing demand. Under the provisions of this legislation, it will be liable for the old system, while it tries to build a new one. It will be forced to waste money instead of being allowed to invest it smartly.

I see my time is up, and I will finish up the rest during the question and answer period.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to and declare my support for Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

The proposed legislation is based on a thorough review of the considerable amount of evidence available, including numerous reports and studies and testimony provided to parliamentary committees.

I believe that anyone who consulted this material would reach the inescapable conclusion that Bill S-8 must be enacted for Canada to make lasting progress on the issue of safe drinking water in first nations communities.

It is my hope that Canadians do not base their opinions of Bill S-8 on other sources of information, such as the popular media or views expressed by various interest and advocacy groups. Unfortunately, some of these sources present false or misleading information.

In my remarks today, I will identify and disprove many common myths about Bill S-8. The first myth is that the Government of Canada did not consult first nations prior to introducing Bill S-8. This could not be further from the truth. When we examine the facts, we will see that an extensive engagement and consultation process has been under way for more than seven years. Furthermore, this effort would only continue once Bill S-8 has passed, as government and first nations officials would work together to design and implement regulations.

Here are the relevant facts. In 2006, our government, working with the Assembly of First Nations, established an expert panel to hold public hearings to examine potential regulatory options. More than 110 individuals presented to the panel. Another two dozen submitted written reports. Almost all of the submissions and presentations came from first nations groups.

In April 2007, we held a joint workshop together with the Assembly of First Nations and its technical water expert group to engage in the proposed options for regulations and identify any challenges or issues.

In early 2009, we conducted a series of 13 engagement sessions with first nations communities and organizations and with provincial and territorial groups. Of the approximately 700 participants, more than 540 were members of first nations.

In September 2009, government officials met with first nations chiefs and organizations to discuss some of the specific issues raised during the engagement sessions. Starting in October 2010, a series of without prejudice discussions continued for another full year with first nations organizations, and that collaboration continues today. Clearly, consultation has taken place.

A second pervasive myth about Bill S-8 is that it would negatively impact aboriginal and treaty rights. The truth is, however, that this is not the case. Bill S-8 includes a carefully crafted non-derogation clause. In essence, the non-derogation clause included in Bill S-8 would not prevent the government from justifying a derogation or abrogation of aboriginal treaty rights if it is necessary to ensure safety of first nations drinking water.

We believe this clause effectively balances the need to respect aboriginal treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the need to protect human health.

A third myth is that the Government of Canada would not provide first nations with the money needed to abide by new regulations governing water. Once again, this is absolutely false. Between 2006 and 2014, our government will have invested approximately $3 billion in water and waste water infrastructure in first nations communities.

Last year's economic action plan alone committed $330.8 million over two years to build and renovate on-reserve water infrastructure, and our government has reiterated on multiple occasions in this House, before committee and in writing to every chief in Canada our commitment to provide ongoing financial support for drinking water.

Instead of focusing on what Bill S-8 would not do, members should focus more on what it would do. The bill proposes to finally create a mechanism to develop regulations in collaboration with first nations. Until regulations are drafted, it is impossible to know exactly how much money first nations would need to be able to comply with them. This is precisely why strong collaboration is central to this government's strategy to ensure safe drinking water for first nations.

Our government would continue to provide funding for first nations for their need to participate in a process to design, implement and comply with regulations.

Another myth put forward is that Bill S-8 would incorporate provincial and territorial regulations without adaptations and would give authority to the provincial or territorial governments.

Once again, this is false. Building on and adapting to provincial and territorial regulatory frameworks would not give provinces or territories control over drinking water and waste water systems on first nations lands. Rather it would produce federal regulations that are comparable to provincial-territorial regulations and provide first nations communities and municipalities with opportunities to work together in areas such as training and new technologies.

Adapting provincial and territorial regulations would ensure comparability with existing, well-understood regulations, thus increasing certainty about regulatory standards for users and operators of drinking water and waste water systems. This would allow the government and first nations to use existing provincial and territorial water regulations as a starting point to identify areas that could be used as federal regulations and to adapt them according to the needs of first nations.

Bill S-8 would lead to the establishment of a series of regional regulatory regimes. Each of these regimes would be based on relevant provincial or territorial regulations, but the regulations would be adapted to meet the particular needs and circumstances of first nations communities and would be developed and finalized with first nations.

Closely tied to this myth is another misconception that Bill S-8 would impose provincial or territorial jurisdiction on first nations. In reality, there is nothing in Bill S-8 that would give provinces or territories control over drinking water and waste water systems on first nations lands. The proposed legislation would create federal regimes that use provincial or territorial regulations as a template. That would inspire opportunities for collaboration among first nations and neighbouring communities and municipalities.

Some critics contend that first nations would have no input into what the regulations developed under Bill S-8 would contain. The truth is exactly the opposite. First nations would have a great deal of input into the development of regulations. Our government would work in partnership with first nations and other groups, such as provincial agencies, to develop federal regulations and standards. The regulations would be based on meeting the real-world challenges of providing safe drinking water in a particular region. This approach works. The Atlantic Policy Congress has already been working with government officials on regulatory development. These collaborations will be the foundation of regulations developed under Bill S-8.

The next myth is that Bill S-8 would somehow prevent first nations from initiating and enacting their own regulations, policies and laws on drinking water. There is nothing in Bill S-8 that would take away a first nation's authority to create bylaws under paragraph 81(1)(l) of the Indian Act. In fact, it is possible that a first nation's bylaw could supersede regulations created under Bill S-8. This would occur if the first nation's bylaw established a comparable or superior level of health and safety. Bill S-8 would also allow for the use of existing first nations bylaws, if appropriate.

Finally, there is the myth that Bill S-8 would somehow expose first nations to liability issues. However, regulations developed from this proposed act could add protections against liability by establishing what the limits on liability would be for all parties involved, including first nations. Regulations would define the roles and legal responsibilities of all parties, and in the process, clarify responsibilities related to drinking water. The best options would be developed to address the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders by region, because as was said previously by my friend from Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, there is no one-size-fits-all or cookie-cutter approach. We have 631 first nations, and many of them have unique circumstances.

I call on opposition members to start listening to the facts on Bill S-8. I could say that they are hard of hearing, but that would not be true. I would say that they are probably hard of listening. We would like them to listen to the facts on Bill S-8 rather than to the many myths. If they do this, I am confident that they will not be able to vote against Bill S-8—hope springs eternal—and will finally agree that first nations deserve safe drinking water.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in this debate today. I want to say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

Just this morning we saw the results of the good work of the Conservative government when it comes to working with first nations people. We were in the aboriginal affairs committee discussing the Yale First Nation Final Agreement, which involved Chief Robert Hope of the Yale First Nation, the Government of Canada and the Government of B.C. I am hopeful that will move ahead quickly. We saw how it can work when we work together. Certainly, I want to congratulate the Yale First Nation in my riding of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon for all its hard work over 20 years at the table and finally getting the resolution they have been seeking with their treaty.

I am here today to talk about Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. I believe this is an act that fully deserves the support of all colleagues in the House. The proposed legislation would address the serious problem of chronic unsafe drinking water in many first nations through an innovative and collaborative process, which is the key. The proposed process would have first nations work alongside government officials to design and implement regulatory regimes.

A starting point for this work would be the regulations that currently apply to communities adjacent to first nations, which is good common sense. More precisely, this means reviewing provincial or territorial regulations and adapting them to recognize the particular circumstances of first nations communities. We certainly recognize that an Ottawa-based, one-size-fits-all solution is not the solution that first nations need.

Members of this House need to recognize that currently no legally enforceable drinking water and waste water regulations exist for first nations on reserve. This is simply unacceptable. Regulations provide the framework for safe drinking water and waste water systems. They are essential because they map out clear lines of responsibility for each of the many steps required to safeguard water quality, such as source protection, regular quality testing and close adherence to established standards and protocols for water treatment and distribution. This is why regulations are essential for first nations communities. We must safeguard the drinking water for first nations members.

In essence, Bill S-8 is enabling legislation, as the member for Peace River, the chairman of the aboriginal affairs committee, stated earlier. It would authorize regulatory regimes developed through the collaborative process that I have just described. The proposed legislation does not dictate what the regimes must contain.

Unfortunately, some critics have chosen to misinterpret this approach and portray the bill instead as an effort by the Government of Canada to offload some of its liabilities. A closer look at the issue, however, reveals that this is simply not the case.

The truth is that collaboratively developed regulations would clarify the roles and responsibilities of all parties, including chiefs, band councils, water operators, and federal departments and agencies. The Government of Canada has no plan to offload or download its responsibilities to first nations, or to provinces and municipalities for that matter. Bill S-8 aims to engage as many stakeholders as possible in the design and implementation of regulatory regimes that protect the safety of drinking water.

Collaboration has been a defining characteristic of our government's efforts to resolve the issue of first nations access to safe drinking water since the very beginning. Seven years ago, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations agreed upon a joint plan of action. For instance, both partners appointed members to the expert panel that reviewed regulatory options. Although the panel did not recommend a particular option, it did lay out the benefits and limitation of various options. The panel's final report repeatedly emphasized the need for ongoing collaboration.

Here is an excerpt from that report:

The federal government and First Nations partners should take steps to pare away bureaucracy, collaborate with provinces on tri-partite harmonization, and both simplify and update procurement procedures. Over time, First Nations should take on an increasing share of the activities directly related to planning, procuring and gaining approval for plants.

Bill S-8 proposes to follow the expert panel's advice by authorizing regulations developed with the direct input of first nations and designed to meet the particular needs and circumstances of their communities. The government's approach with Bill S-8 effectively rejects other options that have been considered in the past, such as imposing a single federal regime or merely incorporating provincial and territorial regulations without adaptation. These one-size-fits-all approaches are attractive because they should make it easier and faster to establish regulations and assign responsibilities, but these approaches could never reconcile the significant differences that exist among first nations communities. The truth is that we believe the best solution is to design and implement regulations by working directly with first nations and other stakeholders. This is a bottom-up rather than top-down exercise.

To get a sense of what the process might look like, I draw the attention of the House to an effort led by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat. Known as the APC, this advocacy and policy group comprises representatives from more than 30 first nations located in the Atlantic provinces. For the last few years, the APC has been studying regulatory options for drinking water.

Representatives of the APC described this work to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on May 23. Mr. John Paul, APC's executive director, said the organization appreciates that drinking water is ultimately a health and safety issue. Here is an excerpt of his testimony. He said:

We need to own whatever regulations come out of this, and we need to believe that they're workable and to figure out exactly what we need to do on the human resources side, the governance, and all of those different things.

In an effort to take ownership of regulations, the APC contracted one of Canada's most qualified experts in drinking water, Dr. Graham Gagnon, director of the Centre for Water Resources Studies at Dalhousie University. With Dr. Gagnon's help, the APC has developed a list of the technical benchmarks that could provide the basis for a regulatory regime. Perhaps more significantly, however, the APC and Dr. Gagnon have been working on a new approach to regulating the safety of first nations drinking water. The approach would involve a regional first nation water authority. The authority would be similar to those that other communities in Canada use to help govern public utilities and post-secondary education institutions.

Here is how Dr. Gagnon described the proposed authority to the standing committee:

Implementation of a first nations regional water authority would enable coordinated decision-making, maximize efficiencies of resource allocation, and establish a professionally based organization that would be in the best position to oversee activities related to drinking water and waste water disposal. This would, on a day-to-day basis, transfer liability away from chiefs and councils, and pass it to a technical group.

That is very important. He said this would, on a day-to-day basis, transfer liability away from chiefs and councils and pass it to a technical group. As the quote indicates, the creation of a first nations-owned authority could be a valuable part of the solution, at least for Atlantic first nations. APC continues to investigate this option.

It is impossible to say if all first nations would pursue such an approach, but the mechanism proposed in Bill S-8 would provide first nations with the opportunity to propose and develop solutions that best meet their needs and best protect their communities. As the APC's example indicated, liability would not be downloaded or offloaded to first nations but, rather, options would be developed to address the role and responsibilities of the various stakeholders by region. This collaborative approach is precisely why we should endorse the legislation before us.

Our government fully supports Mr. Paul and the APC as they develop their regulations, and we hope the opposition will realize how important this is and support Bill S-8. The bill would help us move forward and work with first nations to develop regulations that serve them well and help provide safe drinking water for first nations right across the country.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always entertaining when that member rises to his feet and speaks about just about anything but the bill in front of us. He did that again today.

The member talked about lip service. He asked us to do the math. We have some math here. Between 2006 and 2014, approximately $3 billion will be invested to support first nations communities in managing their water and waste water infrastructure. In 2011-12 alone, there were 402 major and minor first nations water and waste water infrastructure projects, with 286 more planned for this fiscal year.

The hon. member talked a lot, but not about Bill S-8. He talked about the lack of funding, when there has actually been $3 billion. He talked about a lack of projects, when there have been 600, approaching 700 projects.

Perhaps the member could reconcile the facts with the rhetoric in his speech.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will have an opportunity to expand somewhat on those thoughts and remind my colleague again of the legal meaning of the word “consultation” and all that it implies.

Let me preface my remarks today with two opening comments. First of all, I am holding the bill we are debating today in my hand, an act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands. There could be no more important subject for the House of Commons to be seized with, I would argue, given the state of the nation as it pertains to the right to safe drinking water in first nations communities. However, it also goes on to say “AS PASSED BY THE SENATE June 18, 2012”.

There are two things about that. Where does the Senate get off dealing with a piece of legislation before the House of Commons gets its kick at the can on it? How do the senators pass legislation? Who gave them the right, the mandate, to generate legislation? Where does their legitimacy come from? I would argue that they have no legitimacy, have no right and have no mandate to generate legislation in the other place. They have things completely turned around backwards.

Legislation is generated here by the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada, as chosen in a fair and free federal election, at least when it is not meddled with by the Conservative Party rigging elections. We are the representatives of the people. We deal with legislation. Senators have the constitutional right to review the legislation we pass. They even have a history of vetoing legislation in the Senate.

In the early years of this country, fully 10% of all the legislation passed by the people's representatives was vetoed outright by the other place. Fully 25% was amended significantly. However, rarely, and in fact, I would argue never, in those days, as per the founding fathers of Confederation's vision of our federal system, did we see legislation generated in the Senate. This is a new phenomenon.

Now senators are cranking bills out like there was no tomorrow. Bill after bill after bill comes to the House of Commons. We get the second shot at looking at something that has already achieved all the levels of debate, scrutiny and oversight in the Senate. It is fundamentally wrong. Every time they come to our door with another piece of Senate legislation, we should reject it. We should march it back down to the Senate, drop it on the doorstep and leave it there, because I argue that they have no right. It offends the sensibilities of anyone who would call themselves a democrat, in my view.

The second thing I would point out is that in light of the importance of the subject matter we are dealing with, we should really take a moment today and reflect on the fact that the government has moved closure on this important bill, once again. If one asked how often the government uses the intrusive heavy hand of the tyranny of the majority to shut down debate and pull the shroud of its oppressive nature over our opportunity to deal with this matter, I would answer that it does it every time.

It used to be a rare, infrequent thing. Only when there was a logjam on issues of national significance or national importance would the government of the day advance a bill in spite of it being against the will of the other chamber. They were issues such as the national pipeline debate, in the late fifties. They were huge issues of national significance. Now Conservatives do it at every stage on every piece of legislation, and they do not allow a single amendment to a single bill in the 41st Parliament.

I would argue that our democracy is in tatters. This is only a facsimile of a democracy that is left here. It is kind of like a California strawberry. It has the look of a real strawberry, but when it is bitten into, it tastes like cardboard. This has the outward appearances of a democracy, but in actual fact, it falls short in every respect, because all the checks and balances have been stripped away. All the checks and balances that used to put some restraint on the absolute power of the Prime Minister's office and the ruling party have been tossed aside. Again, that offends me.

I do not want to use my whole speech railing about those two items, but it makes my blood boil to watch the status of our great chamber deteriorate and be undermined and sabotaged by, what I would argue, some very insensitive people. We are dealing with an issue of grave concern and I want to give it the attention it deserves.

I start my remarks by telling the House that the social conditions of our first nations, Metis and Inuit people are our country's greatest failure, our country's greatest shame.

We live in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world and we cannot provide basic needs to a family to survive in 2013.

In Pikangikum, Ontario pipes are laying there with weeds growing over them because they have been there 5 to 15 years. There have been 100 false starts to its promised fresh water and sewage system and yet those first nations still have no running water in their homes and they are using a five gallon oil pail as a toilet. It is a national disgrace.

I have been here 16 years and for 16 years we have been saying that very same thing. When Jim Prentice, a friend of mine, was made the minister of Indian affairs, he announced that this would be his number one priority. Then I watched other ministers of Indian affairs year after year adopt one theme. Andy Scott's number one priority was education. With Jim Prentice, it was going to be water, that most fundamental and basic human right and need. How many years has it been since we have seen Jim Prentice around here? His government is now imposing, and I use that word with all the weight that it implies, a pile of regulations instead of addressing the legitimate basic needs of first nations communities.

Without fresh water and adequate housing, this permanent underclass in our society will continue. As elected representatives, it is our greatest failure. I find it hard to express how disappointed I am in us, and I say that collectively, that we have not been seized with the issue sufficiently to make significant progress on something that is so easy. We are talking about fresh water for communities. We can do this. This is not rocket science.

The government says that it is all about money, that it cannot keep shovelling money at the problem as that is not the solution. I have news for the Conservatives. That is the solution. It is a complete paucity of money that causes those pipes in Pikangikum to lay there with weeds growing over them. The government's solution is to imply that all first nations leadership is either corrupt or incompetent.

That was the government's big priority. It was not a government priority to address the basic needs of first nations people. The government wanted to clean up the act. It said that it gave them lots of money, but there was nothing to show for it. Let us do the math. With 1 million people and $7 billion in total project, $3 billion or $4 billion gets lost, what we call line loss in engineering, and $3 billion or $4 billion gets to an intended person. That amounts to $7,000 per person for their housing, education, health care and infrastructure. We pay $15,000 per student for just high school in Manitoba in non-aboriginal communities and the government allows $7,000 per person for everything. We wonder why we have a permanent underclass and we why children do not achieve their full potential.

Children are growing up in chronic, long-term, multi-generational poverty and they are not being welcomed into the full economy, even though we have all of these skill shortages. The government will bring in 500,000 temporary foreign workers and allow an unemployment rate of 85% in communities in northern Manitoba, that is people between 16 and 25 years old. Who is failing to make this connection? We are, as elected representatives. It is an appalling situation.

The shortcomings of this legislation are legion and well-documented by all of the witnesses. Virtually all of the witnesses representing legitimate first nation organizations condemn this legislation. Yet it is being imposed in the customary way for them.

The Conservatives have been looking for validators. They have lost their number one stooge, Patrick Brazeau. They had to kick him out of their caucus. Therefore, they do not have a stooge anymore to support some of these initiatives, to say that this is exactly what first nations need, that the reason they are poor is because they are all corrupt. Therefore, they can pass some legislation to ram and impose some more accounting down their throats.

If the Conservatives knew anything about the reality of life administering a first nation reserve these days, they would know, as the Auditor General pointed out, that first nations are over-audited. These people have to put in 160-some-odd financial reports per year, over three a week, to the five funding agencies. They are doing nothing but paperwork. If they file one of those 160 documents incorrectly, they are told that they will be put under trusteeship, third-party management, because they are not managing their money properly.

Then the Conservatives impose, through the Indian Act, an instrument of oppression, if I ever heard one, an instrument of oppression unworthy of any western democracy. As per the Indian Act, they have to re-elect a new band council every two years, so nobody ever develops any expertise in doing this kind of thing.

It is a paternalistic Eurocentric cluster something is what it is.

I remind anybody who has any working knowledge of these things, and I have noticed some of the guys claiming they have spent some time on the aboriginal affairs committee, to read this penultimate Harvard study that took place a number of years ago. It noted that the degree of successful economic development in first nation communities all over North America, not just in Canada, was directly proportional to the degree of self-determination and independence. If they can get out from under the yoke of the paternalistic Eurocentric Indian Act and the meddling of naive people who are trying to impose some set of rules without any sensitivity to culture, heritage or anything else and starved for resources and finances, there would be a road forward.

This bill represents the worst manifestation of that same paternalism that we have seen since the Indian Act was imposed on day one. There is pretty much a blanket condemnation here.

This reminds me of the days of the first nations governance act, the Liberal version of imposing even more Eurocentric naivety on them. It had many of the same properties of some of the critics who came forward condemning this, after being consulted and not having any of their concerns accommodated. Some of them were blanket condemnation of which we should really take note.

Jim Ransom, the director of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, said:

The last concern we have with Bill S-8 is in the sense of how it confers to the provinces jurisdiction over first nation water systems.

What a hodgepodge of overlapping jurisdictions that is sort of a recipe for paralyzing any progress. It is almost institutionalizing some long squabble over jurisdiction and obligations.

In Manitoba, we have been dealing with this for years now when it comes to child and family services and health services. Even though the Conservatives adopted Jordan's Principle, as put forward by our colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan to make the case that a child is a child is a child and deserves equal treatment whether it is under section 15 of the charter or section 35 or under first nations rights, we are not going to squabble about that. We are not going to wait for an air ambulance to take some kid to Winnipeg because nobody could figure out who is going to pay for the treatment of this child. We are going to do it now and we are going to fight with Ottawa later. That is what we are left doing.

The same is true for education. We have kids in Thompson off reserve. The budget is $15,000 a year to keep a kid in high school there. The budget for educating a similar student in a reserve 100 miles away is $8,000 per year. That is almost a 50% difference.

Some would argue that it should cost more to provide a comparable level of education on reserve because of the isolation, all kinds of different costs, the economy of scale and so forth, but it is about 50%. Then we wonder why the outcomes are poor in the education system.

No one can tell me that it is not about money and that in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world we cannot provide for the basic needs of a child and indeed a family to survive, because that is an absolute myth.

I heard a speech one time by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. He had a very poignant way of pointing things out. He said that if one had five children and only three pork chops the solution would not be to kill two of the children, but neither would it be a solution to divide those three pork chops into five equal pieces. The social democratic view of that problem is to challenge the basic assumption that there is only three pork chops because that is the big lie in a society and a civilization like this. There is enough money to provide for the basic needs of families in this society.

Nobody worked with the communities, nobody worked in a respectful nation-to-nation relationship that we had all been promised for so many years when the government dedicated that $330 million to infrastructure in the first nations. It has become almost a meaningless cliché. People actually cringe when we use that term now because that commitment has been broken and compromised so many times that nobody believes it anymore. The relationship is so strained, the leadership is so challenged to keep a lid on that simmering pot of unrest that it is tempting fate.

I am not here to speak for anyone, but I have nothing but admiration for the leadership in first nation communities to have kept the youth down as much as they have in terms of social unrest because it is a recipe for social unrest. A bunch of able-bodied young ambitious 18 to 25 year old youth completely excluded from the economy yet seeing on television and on their iPads what the world is really like in western society and they have none of it is a recipe for social unrest and we had better get in front of that bus or we will get run over by it, in my view.

Shawn Atleo has announced that the level of unrest this summer could be a concern. It is dependent on the level of accommodation that they get from the government. The leadership has to be able to tell the people that there is hope, that there is promise on the horizon. If it is the status quo and more of the same, it cannot keep a lid on it forever. I hate to say where I would be if I was a young aboriginal man today. I think I would have a very difficult time containing myself, given the injustice of it all, the social injustice of the social conditions of our first nations, Metis and Inuit youth.

I have used much of my time criticizing the fact that this bill comes from the Senate when it should not. The government has invoked closure not once, not twice, but 41 times in this Parliament on every bill, every stage of every bill and has never accommodated a single amendment to a single piece of legislation in the entire 41st Parliament.

Our democracy is in tatters. It has become a farce in three acts. The Conservatives are losing members. Principled MPs are walking out and I believe more will as they realize they have come to most resemble that which they used to most condemn, which was the corruption of the Liberal Party. It was the culture of secrecy in the Liberals that allowed corruption to flourish. The Conservatives are obsessed with secrecy and they are not making any progress on what I believe is the most pressing social emergency of our day, and that is the social conditions of our first nations, Inuit and Metis people.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I had the privilege of sitting on the aboriginal and northern affairs committee under your tutelage as the committee chair, and also under my colleague from Peace River. That was an important part of an opportunity to learn a lot about the first nations.

Now, of course, we have the safe drinking water act. I am really pleased to be able to stand here and speak to this. The legislation includes a mechanism that would allow for the development of these regulations. They are desperately needed to safeguard drinking water and allow for proper waste water treatment in first nations communities.

It is time to move forward to create the regulations needed to safeguard drinking water in first nations communities. Bill S-8 addresses an urgent need, and I implore the opposition to support the government on this legislation.

Currently, provincial and territorial regulations protect the safety of drinking water in the vast majority of communities across Canada. In first nations communities, however, no such regulations apply. The lack of regulations has been a major contributor to the poor state of drinking water in many first nations communities.

A lengthy process of consultation did occur, and engagement and review contributed to the legislation now before us. The process began more than seven years ago, when the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations considered a series of regulatory options. The panel hosted a series of public hearings in first nations communities across Canada. More than 110 people presented to the panel, and a total of more than two dozen individuals and organizations provided written submissions. This work helped identify that a region-by-region approach was needed to develop effective regulations, as stated by my colleague from Peace River. Bill S-8 proposes this approach and recognizes that no one-size-fits-all solutions exist.

In 2010, the Government of Canada introduced Bill S-11, a different version of the legislation now before us, which also called for a region-by-region approach. Although this version died on the order paper, the review conducted by the standing committee of the other place clarified many of the issues that remained to be addressed. A key issue was that legislation on drinking water might abrogate or derogate from existing aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations. Most first nations representatives and many parliamentarians repeatedly raised concerns that the legislation and subsequent regulations on drinking water could infringe on existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, protects these rights.

Between Bill S-11 and the introduction of Bill S-8 in February of last year, the Government of Canada continued to discuss legislative options with first nations groups. A breakthrough on the non-derogation issue came during the “without prejudice” discussions that the Government of Canada held with regional first nations organizations. During these discussions, first nations proposed that future legislation include a non-derogation clause, a provision clarifying the relationship between drinking water regulations and first nations rights. This was also a sentiment echoed by many witnesses who appeared to speak to Bill S-11. The clause now included in Bill S-8, clause 3, is virtually the same as the version proposed by the first nations as a result of those discussions.

In essence, the non-derogation clause included in Bill S-8 would not prevent the government from justifying a derogation or abrogation of aboriginal and treaty rights if it is necessary to ensure the safety of first nations drinking water. The non-derogation clause in Bill S-8 would effectively balance the need to respect aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the need to protect human health.

It is a delicate balance to strike, but I believe the clause in Bill S-8 succeeds and would help achieve a larger goal. Consider the following example. Let us say that the only feasible water drinking source for the first nations community is on reserve lands. Under Bill S-8, regulations could be developed to protect this drinking water source, even if the regulations limited the ability of first nations individuals to use the land pursuant to their treaty rights.

Perhaps the first nation wanted to build a commercial development on the land. If the proposed land use threatened the viability of the water source, and by extension, the health and safety of community residents, derogating from a possible aboriginal treaty right to use the land could be justified.

The inclusion of the non-derogation clause in Bill S-8 would immensely strengthen the proposed legislation. It would address a key concern of first nations and other groups while promoting the health and safety of members of first nations communities.

Another important development that occurred with Bills S-11 and S-8 was the publication of the national assessment of first nations water and waste water management systems. It represents the most comprehensive study ever done of the facilities used to treat and distribute drinking water in first nations communities. The national assessment is valuable, because it provides not only an important point of reference but also an impetus for parties to work toward an effective solution.

It is important to recognize that Bill S-8 proposes a collaborative process to establish regulations in each region of the country. The government will work with first nations and other stakeholders to draft effective regulations. These regulations could be crafted to meet the particular circumstances of the region and the needs of the first nations community.

Much work remains to be done to ensure that residents of first nations communities can have the same level of confidence as other Canadians when it comes to their drinking water. Moving ahead with Bill S-8, complete with the non-derogation clause, represents an essential step forward in providing first nations with the regulations needed to safeguard drinking water in first nations communities. I encourage the members of the opposition to stop voting against Bill S-8 and to recognize the important health and safety issues at stake.

Canadians across this land, in most communities we are aware of, have safe drinking water. It is really important that all Canadians have safe drinking water, including first nations, who have suffered for a long time, in certain circumstances, without it. It is incumbent upon our government to assist those first nations to make sure that, in fact, they have the same kind of safe drinking water that all other Canadians enjoy.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand this afternoon and speak to Bill S-8.

I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee. I note, Mr. Speaker, that it is a role you undertook prior to your current position, and it is a privilege to succeed you in that role.

It has been a privilege to serve as chair amid the relationships that have developed across party lines, and I believe our committee has been able to undertake some good work. We have been able to do that in a way that respects not only the desire to bring different perspectives together but to move things forward. It has been a privilege for me to serve in this capacity, and I owe a debt of gratitude to all committee members of all parties who have worked together.

In the consultations and work we did in reviewing Bill S-8, that relationship was paramount, because we desired to hear from folks from different locations across the country. We desired to hear from first nations as well as experts, and from municipalities in addition to that. We desired to hear from people who could speak to the issue of drinking water on reserves specifically, and how we might move toward safe drinking water for all first nations communities and for all first nations people across the country.

There has been much said already about the bill, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. However, this piece of legislation is enabling legislation. It will allow for regulations to be created to ensure that the water every first nation is using and providing to their local grassroots members is safe.

Clean, safe drinking water is something that we all, as Canadians, take for granted. Water in most municipalities and water systems is provincially regulated, and we know that the regulations that have been established do provide assurance of cleanliness and safety. However, this is not the case in first nations communities. I wanted to note that off the top.

One of the privileges that I have had as well is to serve with the member for Medicine Hat on these important issues. I will be sharing my time today with the member from Medicine Hat.

An important thing to note with regard to this legislation is that some people have asked for additional clarity or for provision of what the regulations would look like once they are done. We recognize as a government—and I think our minister and the minister before him have articulated it well—that it is important that we do not create, or try to create, a one-size-fits-all approach. First nations across the country were loud and clear that one size does not fit all. It never will and never has, for a number of reasons.

Number one, there are differences in our geography in terms of where water comes from, in terms of the number of people it serves and in terms of the technologies available.

There are also differences in what has been undertaken by different municipalities and different provinces. Often first nations communities depend on or collaborate with neighbouring municipalities, so if a set of regulations in one province is different from the regulations in another province, yet they both comply with their respective provincial regulations, then to try to manufacture a national, pan-Canadian regulation system would not take in the differences that we should all accommodate.

Just because there are different regulations does not mean there are different levels of water quality. Different regulations are often required because of different hydrology or different sources of water that local people are drawing from, as well as a result of the number of people who live in certain areas. A water system that serves 100 people or 25 people is vastly different from a water system that supports tens of thousands of people.

That is the reality in municipalities. It is also the reality in first nations communities. That is why an enabling piece of legislation would allow flexibility to work with first nations, to respond to their desires and hopes but also to the realities within their communities. I think we all want a system that will work and provide assurance for clean drinking water into the future.

Our government has invested significantly in providing clean drinking water. I can say that in my own constituency, we have seen significant amounts of money allocated toward water systems that provide water to first nation communities. In some cases, these water systems have been set up to be separate and only for first nation communities. In other cases, we have collaborative efforts that have been undertaken between first nations communities and neighbouring municipalities. The water systems that are built are different because the needs are different and because the water sources are different. However, I can say that with the money that has been leveraged into these systems, many first nations throughout my constituency are being better served with cleaner water and the assurance of that.

However, if we build these systems without regulations, we know that there is a possibility we cannot be assured that the people who are running these systems are trained to run them, and we heard testimony of that at committee. We heard again and again of the necessity of ensuring that for the water systems. All the money in the world could be spent on a water system, but if there is no one running it who knows how to do so, there is a chance that these systems will fall into disrepair, or as a result of either flooding or some type of change in the source water, there may be contamination or problems in terms of the water. Therefore, it is important that we have trained folks, and that is what regulations would set out. Obviously they would ensure that the people who should be running these systems are doing so.

As we look across this country, we see significant diversity. When we look at it region by region, we know we will have to be responsive not only to different realities in terms of population but also different realities in terms of the demographics, geography and distribution needs.

We have heard some concern from the members opposite that maybe people were not consulted to the extent they should have been. I can say we heard person after person come to our committee and say they had been consulted but they still had some desire to see things articulated in the regulations, which is the exciting thing about this undertaking. This process would continue to be a consultation. It would continue to work with first nations to build a regulatory regime that would work for them in their region.

We heard from first nations, some of which span between provinces where half the community is in one province and half in another. We heard from communities that live near urban centres and from some that are quite a distance from urban centres, from some that are in remote locations and from some that live where there is access to different technologies. However, the exciting thing about this process is that there would be a region-by-region recognition and implementation of different regulations.

This goes back to the fact that we are not a government that believes that a one-size-fits-all approach is the right approach. We recognize that, with more than 630 first nations, there is diversity of opinion in terms of what should work but also practical differences in terms of geography and demographics, and these things need to be addressed with regulation. This is why we believe strongly that working in collaboration with the jurisdictions in which these communities are located, whether that be provincial jurisdictions or municipalities, we can come up with a regulation that is uniquely tailored to the communities that these regulations are intended to serve. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, it would be a more customized approach to ensure that people who are living in first nations are well served by the regulation.

We know this is not a quick fix. We know it will take many years to ensure that all systems across this country are established to ensure everyone is receiving clean drinking water. However, we are well on our way, and this enabling legislation would ensure we continue to move in that direction.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the third time and passed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to a very important bill and a very important issue for the people I represent in northern Manitoba. I am honoured to represent the people of Churchill. That includes 33 first nations, first nations that are diverse, young with tremendous energy and tremendous opportunity. However, immense challenges exist on these first nations. Nowhere is that challenge more evident than the lack of access to safe drinking water, water services and sewage services on first nations.

When the reference to third world conditions is made, it is made because of the lack of access to safe drinking water that exists on many first nations in northern Manitoba. I think of the Island Lake community, four first nations that are isolated on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. I think of St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Wasagamack and Red Sucker Lake. All of these communities are growing, like many first nations, at a high rate. There are a lot of young people and young families. Overcrowding and lack of housing are very serious issues.

However, what is evident in these communities is the impact of the lack of safe drinking water in terms of health outcomes, in terms of broader indicators of quality of life, in terms of the mortality rate that unfortunately among first nations remains lower than the Canadian average. That mortality rate is connected to a number of factors, but the fundamental lack of access to safe drinking water is key.

It is unacceptable that in the year 2013, in a country as wealthy as Canada, that first nations, simply because they are first nations, lack access to a basic right, the right of clean water and access to safe drinking water. They lack access to the kind of infrastructure that would ensure a healthier lifestyle in line with that which all Canadians enjoy.

While members from the governing party have spoken to the disastrous indicators, what they fail to speak to is their own failure to uphold their fiduciary obligation to first nations, their own failure to live up to the treaties, to respect aboriginal and treaty rights in ensuring that first nations, no matter where they are, have access to safe drinking water.

Instead of recognizing that failure and investing in the kind of infrastructure that is necessary, investing in the kind of training that is necessary for first nations to be able to provide access to safe drinking water, the government has chosen to uphold its pattern of imposing legislation on first nations. Not only has it imposed legislation in this case, Bill S-8, but it has done so without consultation, without recognizing the tremendous concerns that first nations have brought forward with respect to previous iterations of the bill. Fundamentally it is disrespecting its commitments under the treaties, under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which it signed. Even more reason for concern is the fact it is putting first nations in even greater danger than they are already in.

We know that Bill S-8 provides no funding to improve water systems on reserve. This is shameful because, given the rhetoric that we hear from the government about commitments to first nations, the reality is that when it comes to making a difference for safe drinking water, the need for investment in infrastructure and investment in capacity building is extremely serious.

I was there in February this year, but I remember being in Little Grand Rapids a couple of years back where the water treatment plant operator talked to us about how the chemicals he needed to be able to make sure that the water was safe for his community to drink were going to run out halfway through the year. I have spoken to water treatment plant operators who have talked about the lack of access to training programs so that they can improve their skills, so they can have the knowledge and skill set to be able to provide safe drinking water for their community members.

I have heard from water treatment plant operators, sewage treatment plant operators and leaders in communities who have expressed real concern about their inability, with the little they are given from this federal government, to provide what is a basic standard of living to their people. That onus falls entirely on the backs of the federal government.

Unfortunately, this is a result of years of neglect by the previous Liberal government, the imposition of the 2% cap that was halted, and has frozen in many cases, the kind of funding that is necessary for first nations to operate, and has been very much continued by the Conservative government.

We have seen that first nations that are continuing to grow, where their needs are continuing to grow, are turning to a federal government that is not only not prepared to make the investments in infrastructure, but is actually imposing its colonial agenda to boot.

We are very concerned in the NDP that on Bill S-8, like previous bills, Bill S-2, and so many others that impact first nations, Bill C-27, the government has insisted on shutting down debate on these very important bills, preventing members of Parliament from speaking out on behalf of their constituents who would be negatively impacted as a result of this legislation. We believe that by doing so, it is also silencing the voice of the first nations in this House.

This practice has unfortunately also been applied to committees where the facts have not been heard because of the government's attempt to muzzle those who oppose its agenda.

We in the NDP also stand in solidarity with first nations that have decried the government's continued pattern in which bills affecting first nations also include a clause, and we see it in Bill S-8, that gives the government the ability to derogate from aboriginal rights. The clause says, “Except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nations land”.

It is unconscionable that a federal government that is charged with a fiduciary obligation to first nations, that is there to honour the treaty relationships it is party to, would go so far as to derogate from aboriginal rights, to be able to break that very commitment it has to first nations. That is a failure on the part of the government. First nations have risen up against this failure, through the Idle No More movement, and through activism and leadership that first nations have consistently shown, saying that they are opposed to the government's agenda, and Bill S-8 is one of those reasons if we look at it clearly.

We are also very concerned about the pattern of unilaterally imposing legislation. We recognize that the AFN, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, a series of representative organizations of first nations have been very clear in their opposition to Bill S-8.

The reality is that the government is trying to change the channel on its own failed rhetoric around accountability and transparency, words that it cannot take to heart, given the recent scandals that have emerged. The government is trying to change the channel and put the blame on first nations.

When it comes to something as serious as access to safe drinking water, there is no room for these kinds of political games. The government should stand up, and instead of changing the channel, instead of imposing legislation, instead of breaking its commitment under the treaties and disrespecting aboriginal rights, it should work with first nations in partnership to make the investments that are necessary and obvious to ensure that safe access to drinking water exists in first nations communities the way it exists in communities across the country.

For the people of Island Lake, for first nations across this country, for all Canadians, we deserve better from the government.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the third time and passed.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today. For the second time in two days we will be addressing first nations issues. I would like to advise the Speaker that I will be sharing my time.

Today I am speaking with the help of the MP for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who has done a tremendous amount of work on the first nations file. It almost seems to me that she does more work for the first nations than the entire Conservative caucus put together.

The regulations the government wants to impose may incorporate by reference provincial regulations governing drinking and waste water in first nations communities. However, the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations expressed concern about using provincial regulations, since that would result in a patchwork of regulations, leading to some first nations having more stringent standards than others.

These regulations would overrule any laws or by-laws made by first nations and limit the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of its duties under regulations.

New Democrats want to see safe, clean water and water systems that work for first nations communities, but imposing this legislation is not the solution. The federal government cannot simply unload its liability to first nations without providing the funding to bring the systems up to new standards.

First nations oppose the act because of the new liability provisions for first nations governments and the language around the non-derogation clause that is formulated to possibly be a first step to erode the constitutionally protected rights.

The delivery of safe drinking water to on-reserve first nations communities is critical to the health and safety of first nations Canadians, but for more than a decade, many first nations have lacked adequate access to safe drinking water. Bill S-8 is the second legislative initiative to address safe drinking water on reserve. Its predecessor, Bill S-11, did not proceed to third reading as a result of widespread concerns and subsequently died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 2011.

Bill S-8 retains several of the features of former Bill S-11, particularly in areas to be covered by eventual federal regulations. Non-derogation language is still included in the proposed legislation, expressly allowing for the abrogation or derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights in some circumstances.

It also provides for the incorporation, by reference, of provincial regulations governing drinking water and waste water.

The text of the bill would not, on its face, adequately address the needs of first nations to build capacity to develop and administer appropriate laws for the regulation of water and waste water systems on first nations lands.

New Democrats agree that the poor standards of water systems in first nations communities are hampering people's health and well-being. They are also causing economic hardship.

However, this legislation would make first nations liable for water systems that have already proven inadequate, without any funding to help them improve their water systems or give them the ability to build new ones more appropriate to their needs.

In addition, although there is a slight wording change, there is a clause in this legislation that would give the government the ability to derogate from aboriginal rights.

A provincial regime of regulations would not do enough to protect first nations communities. The patchwork system of provincial laws was rejected by the government's own expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations. We need a national regulatory system.

Regulations alone will not help first nations people to develop and maintain safe on-reserve water systems. They need crucial investments in human resources and physical infrastructure, including drinking water and sewage systems and adequate housing.

This is not a difficult problem to solve. It just requires political will and adequate investment.

The Assembly of First Nations submitted the following to the Senate committee:

Bill S-8, as part of ongoing process started with Bill S-11 prior to the CFNG, continues a pattern of unilaterally imposed legislation and does not meet the standards of joint development and clear recognition of First Nation jurisdiction. The engagement of some First Nations and the modest changes made to the Bill do not respond to the commitment to mutual respect and partnership envisioned by the CFNG.

The AFN also passed resolution no. 58/210 at its special chiefs assembly in December 2010 calling on the government to: ensure appropriate funds were available for any regulations implemented; support first nations in developing their own water management system; and work collaboratively with the AFN in developing an immediate plan on the lack of clean drinking water.

This resolution also puts the government on notice that the AFN expects any new water legislation to comply with first nations constitutionally protected and inherent treaty and aboriginal rights, the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and the report of the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations.

Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Treaty 7 nations in Alberta have signalled continued concerns with the proposed legislation, citing, among other things, the need to address infrastructure and capacity issues before introducing federal regulations.

In 2007, Dr. Harry Swain, chair of the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations, told the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples that:

This is not...one of those problems in Aboriginal Canada that will persist for ever and ever and ever. This is one that can be solved and it can be solved with the application of a good chunk of money for a limited period of time,

The expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations argued that “Regulation alone will not be effective in ensuring safe drinking water unless the other requirements...are met...both human resources and physical assets”.

In 2011, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada released its “National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems--Ontario Regional Roll-Up Report”. The results show that 1,880 first nations homes are reported to have no water service and 1,777 homes are reported to have no waste water service.

In 2011, the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada commissioned an independent assessment on first nations water and waste water systems. The report clearly states that a significant financial commitment to infrastructure development will be necessary. It will cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to ensure that the needs of first nations communities in water and waste water systems are met. Instead, the Conservatives committed only $330 million over two years in 2010 and nothing in 2011.

I would just remind members of the House that most of us take for granted the fact that we own homes. When we are not in our riding we either live in a hotel or have an apartment. Every day, if we need a drink of water, we just turn on the tap. We take it for granted. Some first nations communities just cannot do that. We had a fine example of that lately in Montreal when there was a boil water advisory. People were shocked that they had to boil their water. All we have to do is think about the first nations that have to do that day in, day out every day of the year and have done so for years.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the House about Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, a piece of legislation that deserves the full support of this House.

The proposed legislation is a crucial component of an integrated plan to resolve an issue that has persisted for far too many years and that threatens the health of tens of thousands of Canadians. Until regulations and standards are in place, the safety and quality of the water in first nations communities will remain at risk, posing a significant health risk.

I call on the opposition to stop stalling and to vote in support of this important legislation.

The long-term plan to improve the quality of drinking water in first nations communities is based on three pillars: capacity-building and operator training; investments in water and waste water infrastructure; and enforceable standards and protocols, which would be this legislation. Each of these pillars is designed to contribute in a specific way to the larger goal, which is access to safe drinking water for all first nations communities.

Improving operator training and community capacity is a case in point. One of the key problems identified in several studies on drinking water in first nations communities was the lack of capacity to operate and maintain water and waste water treatment facilities. In many case, there are simply not enough trained operators available to keep facilities running properly. Without trained and certified operators, any water system, regardless of where it is located, is unlikely to produce safe drinking water over the long term. The challenge is even greater when the system is in a remote part of the country, as so many first nations communities are. It is notoriously difficult to attract qualified workers and to retain them in these remote communities. This is true for a wide range of occupations. The remoteness of a community also contributes to delays in obtaining supplies, replacement parts and qualified repair technicians, which in turn can cause the system components to wear out more quickly.

The best way to address these challenges is to train and employ community residents, because they have a personal stake in ensuring the availability of safe, clean and reliable drinking water in their own communities. This is precisely what the circuit rider training program does.

Under this highly successful program, trainers travel to first nations communities and provide system operators with on-site, hands-on training on how to operate, maintain and monitor water and waste water systems. To increase the number of trained and certified operators, our government invests approximately $10 million each year in this program. Thanks to the circuit rider training program, there are now more trained and certified system operators than ever before.

In 2011, the national assessment determined that operators with the appropriate level of certification managed only 51% of first nations' water systems and 42% of first nations' waste water systems. One year later, annual performance inspections of the same systems concluded that these numbers had increased to 60% and 54% respectively.

Obviously, systems operated by properly trained and certified staff are more likely to consistently produce safe drinking water.

Less obvious, perhaps, are two other important benefits. First, properly trained operators are better able to ensure that facilities function effectively throughout their expected service life, maximizing the value of the infrastructure investments. Another benefit is that trained and certified operators will be better able to ensure that their systems can meet future regulatory standards.

Even the best qualified operators would struggle to consistently produce safe drinking water if they had to work with outdated or unserviceable equipment. That is why investments in water system infrastructure represent the second pillar in the Government of Canada's strategy to improve the quality of drinking water in first nations communities. Between 2006 and 2014, our government will have invested approximately $3 billion in water and waste water infrastructure in first nations communities. Economic action plan 2012 included more than $330 million over two years to build and renovate water and waste water infrastructure.

In this 2012-13 fiscal year alone, this investment supported some 286 major water and waste water infrastructure projects in first nation communities across the country. The government would continue to provide funding so that first nations could improve the quality of their water system infrastructure.

To get the full value of infrastructure investments, however, water systems must also be supported by enforceable regulations. That is what we are talking about today. These regulations would specify treatment standards, testing protocols, allowable levels of contaminants and all of the other factors that help define safe drinking water.

Regulations would foster accountability and provide community residents with the assurance they need to trust the water that comes out of their tap. Delivering safe drinking water on a consistent basis would require a chain of interventions: sources must be protected, for instance; and water must be filtered, treated and tested. Although these processes may vary, based upon the quality of the source water and the size of the distribution network, they must all be solid. Also, like all chains, the one that safeguards drinking water is only as strong as its weakest link.

Regulations would represent a key component of the overall process. They would specify science-based standards for quality testing, treatment protocols and other factors. Regulations would also assign responsibility for specific tasks. The organizations, such as municipal utilities, that supply water to the public must abide by these regulations.

Without regulations, there could be no assurance of the safety of drinking water in first nation communities. Regulations would provide the overarching framework of a drinking water system and guide the efforts of everyone involved in the system.

Bill S-8 would include a mechanism to establish regulatory regimes concerning the drinking water systems in first nation communities. This it the third pillar of the plan. The regimes would include rigorous standards and protocols and promote the accountability necessary to ensure that first nation communities have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water.

To develop regulations, the legislation calls for a collaborative, region-by-region approach. In each region, first nations, the Government of Canada and other stakeholder groups would, together, design a regulatory regime tailored to local circumstances. The regulations used in nearby communities, such as provincial regimes, would serve as valuable guidelines.

I believe there is a tremendous value in this approach, because existing regulations are typically informed by the real-world challenges of producing water in a particular part of the country—challenges such as geography, weather and the quality and availability of water sources.

All three pillars must be in place to ensure that residents of first nation communities can access safe drinking water on a consistent and reliable basis. Operators must be properly trained; facilities must be functional; and standards, guidelines and protocols must be backed by regulations that must be in place.

Considerable progress has been made on all of these during the past seven years. The legislation now before us would support further progress.

Bill S-8 would be an essential part of a sensible, practical and balanced plan to improve the quality of drinking water and protect the long-term health of tens of thousands of Canadians.

Currently, laws are in place to protect the safety of drinking water accessed by every other Canadian, except for those living on reserve.

I call upon the opposition to stand up for first nations across this country and support Bill S-8.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga.

Before I get into my remarks, I had better take a minute to help my hon. colleague across the floor, because unfortunately, she has the facts all fouled up. There are no facts in what she is talking about.

Let us take a minute to look at the time frame. There was a comment made that nothing has been done on this file for years and years. The truth of the matter is that the file became very active in the summer of 2006. We are now in 2013. I respectfully suggest that there has been a fair time frame between 2006 and 2013.

From February to March 2009, there was a series of engagement sessions with first nations communities to look at their problems and at anticipated solutions. In the fall and winter of 2009-10, government officials met with first nations chiefs to discuss their needs with respect to water and waste water on their reserves. From October 2010 to October 2011, without prejudice, first nations organizations addressed various concerns about water.

I mention water, because the hon. member across the way seemed to think that we did not do anything with this file, and nothing could be further from the truth.

There was also mention of there being no funding. Let us look at that for a minute.The government has committed $330.8 million over two years through economic action plan 2012. That plan runs, as members know, into 2013, as well. Therefore, there is indeed money for this project.

As we go further into 2014, the Government of Canada will have invested $3 billion to support delivery of drinking water and waste water for first nations. I respectfully submit for members that this is a sizable piece of change. Obviously, the government is taking water and waste water very seriously.

I stand today to declare my support for Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. The proposed legislation would lead to further progress on the remarkable collaborative effort that has been under way for more than seven years to improve safe drinking water in first nations communities.

As the members of the House recognize, although considerable progress has been made to date, much work remains to be done to ensure that the residents of first nations communities have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water. I am convinced that the key to safeguarding drinking water is to develop regulations using the same type of collaborative approach that has produced so much progress in recent years.

In 2006, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations agreed to a joint plan of action for first nations' drinking water. At that time, the parties committed to five specific action plans. They are, in no particular order, but all of them important, the following: implementing a clear protocol on water standards; ensuring that water systems operators are properly trained; making immediate fixes to water systems in 21 priority communities; establishing an expert panel to identify options for an effective regulatory regime for drinking water in first nations communities; and issuing regular updates on progress made through the plan of action. This collaborative plan inspired significant results and led to a further commitment of funds in an increased effort to make tangible, long-term progress.

For example, thanks to the government's ongoing investment in the circuit rider training program, the number of trained and certified operators, between 2010 and 2012, increased from 51% to 60%. First nations' drinking water systems have enjoyed this increased certification. For first nations' waste water systems, the number has risen from 42% to 54%.

The expert panel created under the plan of action staged a series of town hall sessions across Canada and identified three legislative options. We are talking about water and waste water, and as members in the House here this afternoon are aware, the focus is very much on targets.

One of these options, the delivery of regulations on a region-by-region basis, forms the basis of the legislative situation now before us. To improve the original version of that option, the Government of Canada has published a discussion paper and has met with representatives of first nations groups.

The government has been accused of not consulting, but here we are, a year later, after holding a series of 13 engagement sessions and hearing from more than 500 members of first nations. Throughout these sessions, the participants agreed on the urgent need to address health, safety and environmental concerns related to drinking water in first nations communities.

In 2010, the Government of Canada introduced a different version of Bill S-8, which died on the order paper at the dissolution of Parliament in March 2011.

I respectfully submit that the government has indeed paid close attention to waste water and water management on reserves. It has supplied dollars for the development of the programs. It has supplied training for the development of the programs. It has put in action a plan that ensures that the government has made a commitment to first nations for water and waste water, and it will continue that commitment over a period of years until all first nations communities have the same water and waste water as all the rest of Canada.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with very real frustration that I rise today to speak to Bill S-8, which is focused on federal regulations for water and waste water systems for first nations communities.

In his speech on Bill S-8 earlier this week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said:

It is time to move forward and create the regulations needed to safeguard drinking water in first nations communities.

That is not what the government committed to when in 2011 it supported the Liberal Party motion:

...to address on an urgent basis the needs of those First Nations communities whose members have no access to clean, running water in their homes...

The same motion provided that:

action to address this disparity begin no later than the spring of 2012.

Simply passing a bill—a year late—to allow for water regulations to be imposed on first nations is not the action contemplated in that 2011 motion passed unanimously by the House of Commons. Bill S-8 is not going to fix the problem.

People living in a large proportion of first nations communities do not have access to basic, clean, drinkable water. Lack of access to clean drinking water presents a serious health threat to first nations communities, creating a higher likelihood of disease and infection transmission and poorer overall health outcomes, as we saw with the H1N1 epidemic, particularly on the reserves in northern Manitoba. We are dealing with a crisis that needs much more than words from the government: it needs action.

Unfortunately, this legislation shows just how out of touch the government is in terms of the appalling state of water and waste water systems in hundreds of first nations communities. It will not provide clean water to one more home or one more trained operator for a first nations water facility. The only thing the bill would do is distract from the government's inexcusable inaction on confronting the appalling capacity gaps in these communities in terms of water infrastructure and maintenance.

The position of the Liberal Party has been crystal clear on this legislation since the beginning. In fact, I wrote to the then minister for aboriginal affairs in September 2011. In that letter I explained the Liberal position had two fundamental points.

First, Liberals would not support any legislation on safe drinking water that was introduced without an implementation plan for additional resourcing that fully addresses the deficiencies identified in the national assessment on first nations water and waste water systems.

Second, the government would have to collaborate with first nations and obtain their free, prior and informed consent on the range of regulatory options regarding safe drinking water, as identified by the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations, before the reintroduction of legislation.

The government has failed to address either of these critical points.

Every report regarding the tragic on-reserve water situation states that the massive infrastructure and capacity gaps must be addressed before a legislative option is adopted.

The Assembly of First Nations commented:

Bill S-8 will not guarantee that First Nations have access to safe drinking water. Bill S-8 creates new regulations and standards but does not provide First Nations with any resources to meet those new standards. ... Safe drinking water requires more than writing new regulations. Safe drinking water requires infrastructure and facilities, skills, training and resources.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs wrote to the committee, stating:

AMC has stated several times the fundamental problem is a financial resource one.

The Canadian Bar Association stated:

From a policy perspective, what is still needed is a firm government commitment to provide resources to address water quality issues on reserves, not necessarily new legislation.

In fact, witness after witness came before committee in opposition to this legislation and, among other problems, specifically identified the government's decision to move forward without addressing the capacity gap as the primary issue impacting the provision of safe water to first nations communities.

Grand Chief Roland Twinn of Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta reflected what the committee heard in general from first nations when he said:

...the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Treaties 6, 7, and 8 in Alberta has, from the very beginning, made significant efforts to work with the Harper government to fix the deplorable state of first nations' drinking water systems. Our efforts have been rewarded by the government with political spin, broken promises, and a meaningless piece of legislation that will do nothing to ensure safe drinking water for first nation people.

The government's own expert panel found:

Regulation alone will not be effective in ensuring safe drinking water.... Regulation without the investment needed to build capacity may even put drinking water safety at risk by diverting badly needed resources into regulatory frameworks and compliance costs.

That is the key point. The government's own expert panel said that far from fixing the problem, this approach may even make matters worse.

That report, on page 29, line 2, also said that:

...adequate resources for plants and piping, training and monitoring, and operations and maintenance...are more critical to ensuring safe drinking water than is regulation alone.

The 2007 Senate report entitled Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, from the aboriginal peoples committee chaired by the Hon. Gerry St. Germain, a Conservative senator, stated in the conclusion:

Sustained investment in the capacity of First Nations community water systems and of those running the systems is absolutely essential to ensure First Nations people on-reserve enjoy safe drinking water. Without this investment, we risk introducing a regulatory regime that burdens communities and does little to help them meet legislated standards.

Given the recommendations of the expert panel and first nations about the need to deal with capacity and resourcing issues before, or at least in concert with, legislation, it is shocking that the government decided to introduce the bill in the Senate, where it is subject to increased restrictions on incorporating resources. As a Senate bill there is, and can be, no funding appropriation attached to Bill S-8.

During his speech last week, the parliamentary secretary for aboriginal affairs bragged about the fact that his government “has made significant investments in water and waste water infrastructure....”

Despite actually taking credit for money yet to be spent, the parliamentary secretary neglected to note that his government's own 2011 national assessment of first nations water and waste water systems identified an immediate funding shortfall of $1.2 million and indicated it would require $4.7 billion of new money spent over the next 10 years to deal with the first nations water and waste water capacity gap. This funding shortfall took into account the current funding levels, which have not been increased since that time.

Let us be clear: the $330 million over two years the government points to in its 2012 budget is simply a temporary extension of temporary funding from 2010 and fails to address the capacity gap identified in the 2011 assessment.

In fact, not only is the government content to impose standards and regulations on first nations without providing the required investment in physical assets or capacity-building to deal with the problem, it is actually cutting the money allocated to first nations health and safety-related infrastructure projects, such as water facilities.

Budget 2011 proposed $7 billion over the next 10 years to continue to provide support for first nations, primarily for health and safety-related infrastructure projects. Given that over the past six years this program received an average of $1.2 billion annually, this “new” funding commitment actually represents a cut of approximately $345 million per year from the 2012 funding levels and $500 million from the six-year average. This is nothing short of shocking.

The legislation would result in significant new costs and responsibilities being imposed on first nations without any commitment to transfer the necessary resources.

Despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric at the Crown-First Nations Gathering about resetting the relationship, the Conservative government has shown a total disregard for the rights of indigenous people.

The Liberal Party has heard consistently in the Senate, in the House of Commons and in discussions outside Parliament that there were not appropriate consultations with first nations on this bill.

Grand Chief Craig Makinaw summed up this issue for the House of Commons committee studying this bill, when he stated, “...we shouldn't have one-day consultations across the country and conference calls. That's not consultation.” Consultation requires both a substantive dialogue and for the government to listen and, when appropriate, incorporate what it hears into the approach. Many did not even get the courtesy of a one-way information session the government tries to pass off as consultation.

Chief Charles Weaselhead of the Blood Tribe put it simply for the commons committee when he stated, “...there has been no consultation with the Blood Tribe”. Although first nations have a constitutional right to be consulted on matters like this, the Liberal Party believes it is also just good government to consult with all those impacted by decisions.

At committee, a representative of Metro Vancouver pointed out:

A lack of acknowledgement of local government interests and the absence of a meaningful consultation process, including opportunities for local government involvement and input, pose serious challenges for local communities in that public interests with respect to Bill S-8 are not being fully considered.

Proper consultation leads to better policies and solutions that actually make sense. That has not happened regarding Bill S-8. The bill explicitly subjects existing aboriginal and treaty rights to a clause that suggests that such rights can be overridden. What is disguised as a non-derogation clause states, “to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”.

When the Canadian Bar Association presented to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, it noted, “We believe that the qualification 'except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the drinking water on First Nation lands' is in itself an explicit abrogation or derogation of existing Aboriginal or treaty rights pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act...”.

Mr. Christopher Devlin of the CBA also made it clear to the committee, “Our simple point to the committee is that we don't believe this is necessary and we don't believe it is required for the bill to be effective as it's drafted.”

Despite evidence from legal and aboriginal experts about the serious problems with this clause, the government stubbornly refused all opposition amendments to fix it. This prompted National Chief Shawn Atleo of the AFN to write to the minister after the bill was reported back to the House, urging him to correct this flawed clause before the bill is passed into the House of Commons. He made it clear in that letter, which states, “First Nations will not accept the diminishment of Aboriginal and treaty rights in Bill S-8.” It is time for the government to listen.

All Canadians, regardless of where in Canada they live, whether it is in the north, the south or elsewhere in the country, have a fundamental right to have access to drinking water and adequate water facilities. The Liberal Party will not be supporting this legislation because the government has decided to move forward in a way that not only ignores the fundamental issues at stake, but may actually make things worse.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the third time and passed.

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government's actions are absolutely shameful. I am outraged that it would dare impose a 41st gag order on this Parliament, this time concerning Bill S-8, especially given that this bill contains significant flaws. In particular, these legislative measures will make first nations responsible for water supply systems, which have already proven to be inadequate, without giving them the funding and the means to construct systems that are better adapted to their needs.

Last year, the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay told the government about the heartbreaking situation in the community of Attawapiskat. It is clear that first nations are not a priority for the government. Why are the Conservatives not taking action?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, not to disagree with the member, but we think enough time has been allocated to discuss and debate views and concerns about this bill.

The fact is that over 50 witnesses spoke on Bill S-11, the previous version, and on Bill S-8, the current version. Members heard from many organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, the Institute on Governance and the Indigenous Bar Association.

Bill S-8 was introduced only after many hours of discussion. There has been enough debate. It is time to act.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member is not very much concerned about the substance of the subject matter of this motion.

The motion is about Bill S-8, safe drinking water for first nations. This bill is crucial to ensure that first nations have the same health and safety protections concerning drinking water and waste water treatment as are currently enjoyed by other Canadians.

It has taken seven years for us to get to this point. It has taken seven years of continuous dialogue with first nations, including formal engagement sessions and implementing measures to accommodate the concerns of first nations.

The proposed legislation before Parliament today is the result of hard work and collaboration. It is time to move forward.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill S-8 — Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to third reading stage of Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, the parliamentary secretary expressed the hope that the official opposition would support the bill.

The NDP will not support the bill, and I will lay out my reasons. Part of that reasoning has to do with the fact that at committee, we presented a number of amendments, none of which were accepted by the government. The problem is that we heard loudly and clearly from a number of witnesses about some very serious concerns about the legislation.

I will start with the report of the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations. It laid out, even before we got to the stage of debating Bill S-8 in the House and at committee, some conditions it saw as being important for the legislation to move forward. It started out by saying, “Preconditions: provide resources, discuss and deal with high risks”. In the report it indicated:

The federal government must close the resource gap. First and most critically, it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to establish by the regulatory requirements. While attempting to assume that putting a regulatory regime in place would reduce the dangers associated with water systems, exactly the opposite might happen. This is because creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management and governance.

But the problem is more fundamental than the resources that would be lost to creating a regulatory regime. The underlying issue is that the federal government has never provided adequate funding to meet the 1977 policy commitment as comparable facilities on reserves...

Apart from any legal duty, however, we believe that meaningful discussion between the federal government and first nations is necessary if any action to improve the safety of water on reserves is to be effective and responsive.

It goes on to say:

Deal with high risk communities immediately... Any of the options would take time--probably several years--to reach the ultimate goal of safer drinking water for all First Nations. In the meantime, however, many reserve residents face serious risks from the drinking water available to them, sometimes from collective systems, but very often from individual wells or other water sources.

When government members talk about Bill S-8, they talk about it providing safe drinking water for first nations. When I posed the question for the parliamentary secretary with regard to how long this would take to develop the regulations, there was no answer.

Literally, we can see years before those regulations are developed and implemented. In the meantime, it does not deal with the very immediate risks that a number of first nations have identified. A number of first nations communities have been under boil water advisories for years, not months, not weeks, not days.

When Chief Rose Laboucan, came before the committee, she talked about the fact that they had a $6 million water plant in their communities and they were consistently off and on boil water advisories. Therefore, it is not just having a water plant in place; it is ensuring it is a water plant that is appropriate for first nations communities. This bill, in and of itself, will not guarantee safe drinking water.

I will run through parts of the bill because there are places where we have some serious objections. The first one is right in the preamble, so even before we get into the clauses of the bill. The preamble states that the two departments, Health and Indian Affairs, have committed to working with first nations to develop proposals for regulations to be made under this act. “Working with first nations”, that is not language around consultation.

To refer to the report of the expert panel on safe drinking water, it said:

The second precondition is the need for the federal government to assess whether it has a legal duty to consult with First Nations affected by any of the three options. This duty, according to the Supreme Court, “arises” when the Crown had knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

As my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou reminds me, it is not only the duty to consult, it is the duty to accommodate. That element around consultation is not outlined in the bill. Nor have we had any satisfactory answers.

The parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out that the bill had been before the House in a number of different iterations. With regard to any kind of comfort about the level of consultation that took place in order to come to this final bill, when the first nations technical services advisory group, an Alberta organization, came before the committee, it talked about what the consultation process looked like.

I will quote from its document. It says:

Disappointingly, the Government of Canada has never responded to any of the concerns and issues identified in the Impact Analysis, which has left Alberta First Nations wondering why Canada asked for and funded the Impact Analysis if it never intended to review it, respond to the concerns it raises, or meet with First Nations to discuss it. Sure, there is a legal obligation to consult, but the TSAG is more concerned about the practical implications of Canada's failure to consider the Impact Analysis because it means that Bill S-8 has been developed without any meaningful input from First Nation leaders, communities or water systems operators in Alberta.

In the earlier days, the government talked about the fact that Alberta was in support of the bill. However, when it provided input, as was outlined by the speaking notes from the technical services advisory group, it was disregarded. It did not even hear back as to why its input was disregarded and not considered in this latest version of the bill.

The issue around consultation needs to be clearly spelled out for people to have any kind of confidence that meaningful consultation will take place. In too many pieces of legislation that have come before the House in the last two years, there has not been meaningful consultation. It has been probably the one criticism that has been a thread throughout every bill that has come before the House dealing with first nations.

When it comes to clause 3 of the bill, clause 3 is the section that has what the government likes to call a “non-derogation” clause, but what like first nations like to call a “derogation” clause because it starts out sounding like a non-derogation clause but then it throws in the zinger. At the end of clause 3, it states, “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”. Essentially, what we have is a non-derogation clause that now becomes a derogation clause.

When the Blood Tribe came before the House, it actually provided a briefing note that said:

In the current version, the abrogation and derogation clause, section 3, is now broader in scope proposing to allow the Act and the regulations to potentially abrogate or derogate from our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands. Rather than protecting such rights, the provision suggests that it can directly violate those rights and disregard Canada’s legal obligation to protect Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

That position is reconfirmed by the Canadian Bar Association.

The Canadian Bar Association is also very critical of this derogation clause instead of a non-derogation clause. It said:

We believe that the qualification “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the drinking water on First Nation lands” is in itself an explicit abrogation or derogation of existing Aboriginal or treaty rights pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The qualification in section 3 of Bill S-8 does not, in our view, ameliorate the constitutional problems identified in our earlier submissions on Bill S-11.

We have been unable to find any precedent or explanation for this proposal which would still, in our view, abrogate or derogate from section 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982 in order to provide safe drinking water to First Nations. This provision raises two key issues:

is it necessary to implement the objectives of the bill?

if so, is it constitutionally valid? Can Parliament use its legislative power under section 91(24) to abrogate or derogate unilaterally from the rights protected by section 35?

The attempt to abrogate and derogate aboriginal and treaty rights by statute or regulation would set a dangerous precedent and should not slip by without full explanation and discussion.

In the testimony we heard before our committee from anybody who was a proponent of the bill, nobody could explain why it would be a legitimate use in clause 3 to actually derogate from inherent rights. We proposed an amendment that would have removed the derogation part on clause 3 and it was voted down.

I want to turn to testimony we heard from Akwesasne. When Akwesasne came before the committee, they indicated they were in the middle of negotiating an agreement that would give them jurisdiction over some of these areas. They asked that a provision be in the bill that would delay it coming into force for self-governing first nations that were developing their own water codes, or for other nations that were in a similar kind of an agreement.

The case presented for this was say, for example, these regulations were being developed and coming into force just before a first nations would be signing an agreement that would allow them to implement their own drinking water regulations. The first nations could then be covered by Bill S-8, and then there would be a delay before they could actually implement their own drinking water provisions.

We suggested an amendment that was similar to one under the matrimonial real property legislation. In fact, we lifted it right out of that bill. It talked about the fact that for a first nations in the process of becoming self-governing, or with one of these other treaty agreements, that the bill would not come into force for three days after the day.

That would respect and allow the time to complete those negotiations so that a first nations would not be forced to deal with two different pieces of legislation. That, too, was denied, even though it was in the matrimonial real property bill which allowed self-governing first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property codes. It would have been a reasonable thing to insert in this bill.

When the next amendment we put in, we heard consistently from first nation after first nation, and from the expert panel, that resources were absolutely critical. In this case, we asked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Health to take into account the capacity of each first nation to comply with the prescribed standards to install their drinking water and waste water systems, and to train the operators of these systems.

Now the reason we inserted that particular amendment was because first nations who testified raised a number of concerns about their capacity to comply with the regulations and what the liability would be for the community if they were unable to comply. It seemed to be a reasonable request to ask that the government assess capacity to comply.

If there is not capacity to comply, then it would seem incumbent upon the government to ensure there are resources available, whether it be for infrastructure or training of operators, to ensure first nations could actually meet the regulations being set out before them. Again, that was denied.

We also proposed an amendment that requires capital infrastructure life cycle planning, so that future capital needs are known and expected and can be appropriately budgeted for at the local, regional and national level.

The parliamentary secretary, in his speech, did point out that there are some challenges with infrastructure in first nations communities with regard to the life cycle, the way the infrastructure was originally put together, and certainly with ongoing operations and maintenance.

The government likes to refer to itself as being fiscally responsible. Any of us who have been in control of large budgets know that what has to be done is not only the fiscal year planning but also the longer term planning, the 5-year, 10-year, 25-year cycles. When dealing with large infrastructure projects, it is essential that this kind of life cycle planning is done.

Asking to establish a system of capital infrastructure life cycle planning, again, seems like a reasonable thing to do, particularly when first nations are going to be told they have to abide by the regulations or else there are penalties and a possibility that property could be seized, as laid out in Bill S-8. However, that amendment was voted down as well.

I see that I only have two minutes left, and I have another 25 minutes worth of notes, so I will try to whip through this.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the opposition and to Canadians about why I and the other members of the Conservative government will be supporting Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, and why I urge all hon. colleagues in the House to vote in favour of a bill that will finally give first nations the tools they need to access safe drinking water on reserve.

It has taken seven years for us to get to this point. For seven years, we have had continuous dialogue and consultations with first nations, including formal engagement sessions, informal discussions, and consultations with community members and leadership, technical experts and department officials. This legislative proposal evolved as we worked together, listening to and accommodating the concerns of first nations living on reserve.

The legislation before Parliament today is the result of hard work and collaboration from coast to coast to coast. It is time to move forward and create the regulations needed to safeguard drinking water in first nations communities.

Right now, there is no such protection for tens of thousands of first nations, so Bill S-8 addresses this urgent need. Until regulations and standards are in place, the safety and quality of water in first nations communities will continue to remain at risk and pose a significant health threat for thousands of individuals living on reserve. It is unfortunate, if not shameful, that the opposition continues to oppose this bill. It would rather stand by and allow for the current situation to continue to be a reality for first nations across the country.

Currently, laws are in place to protect the safety of drinking water accessed by all other Canadians, except in first nations communities. While it is true that a handful of self-governing first nations have enacted laws dealing with drinking water and waste water treatment, they are very much the exception. The truth is that when it comes to regulating drinking water, residents of most first nations communities are left unprotected. We cannot tolerate this any longer.

Access to safe drinking water is a hallmark of a progressive, modern society. It is a basic form of infrastructure that Canadian communities depend on. Without a dependable supply of water, it is much harder to maintain public health. This is precisely why so much effort and expense are devoted to acquiring and securing consistent access to safe drinking water.

A closer examination of this effort and expense sheds light on the needs that Bill S-8 would address. They are these. Safe drinking water results from a chain of events, such as actively protecting sources, filtering and treating water, and regularly conducting quality tests to ensure that all systems are functioning properly. Like all chains, the one that safeguards drinking water is only as strong as its weakest link.

Regulations represent a key link in the chain. While they vary slightly from one jurisdiction to another, all regulations specify science-based standards for quality testing, treatment protocols and other factors. Municipal utilities that supply water to the public must abide by these regulations. If not, the justice system holds them to account. The penalties can be severe, and rightly so, given that the health and safety of Canadians is at stake. After all, contaminated drinking water can lead to disaster.

That is precisely what happened 13 years ago in the town of Walkerton, Ontario. A combination of operator negligence and lax regulatory standards led to the death of seven people and more than 2,000 people falling ill. The tragedy inspired a series of improvements to Ontario's drinking water regulations. Today, the vast majority of Ontarians trust that the water that comes out of their tap is safe to drink. It is our government's objective that first nations communities can have that same trust in their water systems.

Our government strongly believes that the law should afford all Canadians similar protections when it comes to drinking water. Bill S-8 would provide the authorities needed to develop and establish regulatory regimes for safe drinking and the treatment of waste water in first nations communities. The absence of regulations makes it impossible to ensure the safety of drinking water in first nations communities over the long term.

In fact, several studies have made this point abundantly clear. For instance, seven years ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development published an in-depth study on the issue. The study concluded that, in most first nations communities, responsibility for the various steps involved in the treatment and delivery of drinking water is diffused among several groups. As a result, it is nearly impossible to hold any single group accountable if something goes wrong; for example, when a pump fails or a water quality test is not done properly.

Here is a quote from that study, “...until a regulatory regime comparable with that in provinces is in place, INAC and Health Canada cannot ensure that First Nations people living on reserves have continuing access to safe drinking water.”

It is clear that without regulations there can be no assurance of the safety of drinking water in first nations communities. Regulations lead to accountability. They assign responsibility for specific tasks and for meeting science-based standards. Regulations provide the overarching framework of a drinking water system and guide the efforts of everyone involved in that system synchronously.

Our government appreciates that regulations alone cannot produce consistently safe drinking water. The other links in the chain must also be in place, such as functional equipment, trained operators, reliable sources of drinking water, proper distribution networks, and appropriate standards, guidelines and protocols. That is why, since 2006, this government has made improving drinking water in first nations communities a top priority.

We have made significant investments in water and waste water infrastructure with approximately $3 billion between 2006 and 2014. As part of Canada's economic action plan version 2012 alone, $330.8 million is being invested over two years. This money has paid for new treatment facilities, upgrades to existing systems, operator training and distribution networks.

While significant progress has been made, regulations are still not in place. However, as a result of these important investments, the percentage of high-risk water systems has decreased by 8.1% and the percentage of high-risk waste water systems by 2.1%. We have doubled funding for the circuit rider training program, which has helped support and train hundreds of first nations water and waste water system operators.

I will take this opportunity to highlight the important work that Confederation College and Northern Waterworks are doing in the great Kenora riding in upgrading the certifications for first nations community members who go back to their isolated first nations communities with more appropriate, if not higher than required, standards to operate water and waste water treatment facilities in their communities.

These programs have seen significant results. For example, since July 2011, the percentage of first nations systems that have primary operators certified to the level of drinking water systems has increased from 51% to 60%, and the percentage of certified waste water system operators has increased from 42% to almost 54%.

Going forward, as we have stated on numerous occasions, I can assure members that our government will continue to invest in water and waste water infrastructure on reserve. As members can see, Bill S-8 is an essential part of our government's larger comprehensive strategy to improve the quality of drinking water for residents of first nations communities.

There are three essential pillars born out of the extensive consultations and the important work done by a coast to coast to coast consultation process in co-operation with the Assembly of First Nations. These three essential pillars are: capacity, with the ability to report, monitor and maintain infrastructure; continued investment in infrastructure; and the development of a clear regulatory framework, which is the basis of today's debate and discussion on Bill S-8.

The legislation before us would help address the third pillar and establish regulatory regimes similar to those that make the drinking water systems in other communities reliable and safe.

Bill S-8 would inspire further progress, not only by establishing regulatory standards but also by extending the collaboration with first nations that continues to generate positive results. When Bill S-8 receives royal assent, our government will continue to work with first nations and other stakeholders to develop regulations on a region-by-region basis. This is important.

Developing regulations by region would enable the government and first nations to partner with municipalities and regional technical experts who deal with the most responsible and the most appropriate forms of water and waste water treatment, which prevail in those regions for a variety of different reasons. This collaborative region-by-region approach would also leverage the value of existing regulations rather than creating entirely new regulations. The most efficient approach is to build upon existing provincial and territorial regulatory frameworks and adapt, where needed, in order to reflect specific local conditions.

We are talking about a very flexible piece of legislation, but let me be clear. This approach would not take jurisdiction away from the first nations, nor would it give a province, territory or municipality jurisdiction over first nation lands. To the contrary, by developing regulations that are comparable to those that exist off reserve, first nations would be better positioned to partner with neighbouring municipalities in the delivery of water treatment services and to co-operate on other matters, such as operator training, business ventures and the adoption of new technologies.

I should add that we are already seeing this. The previous minister of aboriginal affairs and I had an opportunity to tour some water and waste water treatment facilities in Quebec. There we saw water and waste water treatment facilities operating on a reserve for the benefit of that community and the municipality. We also saw communities where water and waste water treatment systems were operating in a municipality or city for the benefit of the reserve. In both instances, there were trained certified operators from both respective communities for the collective benefit of everybody there, better economies and better safety.

There is no question that it will take time to develop and implement regulations across Canada. For this reason, the regulations would be phased in to ensure there is adequate time for the government and first nations to bring drinking water and waste water infrastructure and operating capacity to the levels required to be able to conform with the new regulations. As our government has stated many times in the past, we are not going to roll out regulations until first nations have the capacity to abide by them. Health and safety remain our ultimate goals.

We talked about those three pillars. They support the concept that the pillars not mutually exclusive of each other. They depend on each other to support the kind of framework we are moving forward with first nations on. Namely, if we are going to have legislation, we have to ensure that we have certified operators and that they have the capacity to report, monitor and maintain that infrastructure. Similarly, we have to ensure that they have the infrastructure in place in those communities to be able to meet those standards.

I fully recognize that some first nations do not have the resources needed to help develop these regulations, so back in April 2012 the former minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development sent a letter to all chiefs and band councils confirming that our government would provide the funds needed for eligible activities. We have already provided funding to the Atlantic policy congress to support its researching and analyzing the development of regulations for first nations in the Atlantic region.

In order to continue progress on drinking water in first nation communities, the establishment of an appropriate regulatory regime is required. In the absence of such a regime, investments in infrastructure and training can do little to safeguard water quality. The government has been engaging with first nation partners since coming to government in 2006 and we have continued to engage with first nations on the proposed legislation every step of the way. In fact, this engagement has never stopped.

After the last iteration of the legislation, Bill S-11, died on the order paper, we took action to address some of the concerns that had been raised by first nations and other important stakeholders by making a number of amendments to the current iteration or version of the bill we have before this place.

On the current bill, Bill S-8, we have also continued to consult and we have taken action to address some of those concerns that were raised in regard to the opt-in provision for self-governing first nations. As a result of extensive discussions between stakeholders on this matter, the government brought forward an amendment at committee recommending the removal of this provision from the bill. Removing the opt-in provision serves as yet another good example of the positive results produced by ongoing collaborative discussions with first nations and other stakeholders.

The legislation now before us offers a sensible, practical, balanced solution to an urgent problem that threatens the health of tens of thousands of Canadians. The regulations stemming from Bill S-8 will provide residents of first nation communities with the same level of confidence as other Canadians when it comes to their drinking water.

In closing, this is a matter of health and safety. I appreciate my colleagues' debate. I appreciate the points they have raised in previous readings of the bill and the important work of all committee members as we worked through Bill S-8. However, the priority moving forward is to bring the kind of legislation into play that will support and reflect the need to continue making investments in training and to ensure there are certified operators for the infrastructure, which on an ongoing basis needs to be rehabilitated or replaced.

As a result of those two things, we will find over the course of time, hopefully sooner rather than later, that standards for drinking water and waste water treatment on reserve are at the same levels that other Canadians have come to expect from their respective governments. Therefore, I reach across the way and ask my colleagues to join us and support Bill S-8.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke in the House I made some observations about a recurring theme in the government's initiatives and announcements, and that is that the government is distancing itself from social intervention, more specifically from providing services in the country.

My last intervention focused on charities. I tried to substantiate my comments by introducing our audience to the notion of distancing, the government's desire to withdraw, a desire that has been obvious every day since it came to power. I could see that there were some controversial topics that Canadians viewed somewhat unfavourably. This government is often an easy target, both within Canada and internationally. That is the case when it comes to human rights—which I will come back to later—and access to clean drinking water. Recently in committee, we were examining Bill S-8, an initiative that once again transfers the burden of sanitation and access to clean drinking water onto first nation band councils. As everyone knows, this a fundamental right that is enshrined in the Constitution and one that is internationally recognized. Access to clean drinking water is crucial; it is a basic human right. The government is trying to step back from its obligations, to distance itself, and is transferring this burden to other bodies such as band councils, which do not necessarily have sufficient financial resources to deal with these issues.

Bill C-60 contains the same kind of blind transfer of responsibility. Some subjects are rather contentious, rather controversial. That is why the government is trying to get out of its obligations, or at least distance itself from the negative spotlight associated with certain subjects.

I will now substantiate my remarks by giving some concrete examples.

Throughout this mandate, many members in this House have joined with the auditor in exposing the obvious, chronic underfunding of education in first nation communities. The public's interest in the debate and the media coverage of the shortcomings affecting academic opportunities for a growing segment of the population helped fuel the Idle No More movement.

With respect to education, I read earlier on the CBC website that people are beginning to ask some questions about education for first nations and the general population. They are examining their own situation and their reality, a reality that is reflected in the debates in the House and in the implementation of the measures introduced in the House and sometimes in the Senate. Personally, I think too many measures are coming from the Senate.

That education works to free the people. That is why, in 2013, government agencies are instead focusing on training that meets the needs of companies involved in extracting natural resources. I am seeing that in my own riding. Those of us on the front lines can see that training programs, especially in remote areas, are designed to meet the needs expressed by a significant segment of industry. There is an attempt to push students towards programs that meet the needs of extractive companies, to the detriment of general education that encourages analytical and critical thinking regarding many of our country's contentious issues. That is basically what I wanted to say.

Now I would like to take a look at some of Canada's social statistics. It seems there is a 30% gap between the funding provided to students attending schools on reserve and other Canadians who attend provincial schools. That reflects the fact that natural resources are mainly, but not exclusively, being extracted in remote areas. My riding, where natural resources of all kinds are being extracted, is a clear example of that.

That is why this government does not necessarily have any interest in giving Indians access to post-secondary education. They will find themselves in situations that are similar to the ones they are facing now.

I am calling all of that into question and exposing it. The public has taken up this cause, and because of the advent and the growth of social media as we know them today, it does not take long for the information to get to remote communities. The Internet has become more widely available in recent years, and people have access to that information, even in remote communities. That is why the government tries so hard to restrict first nations' access to education.

Access was facilitated when I began studying law. There were programs that made it possible for aboriginal students to be admitted to law programs. There were pre-law programs, which were eliminated over time. Barring any proof to the contrary, those programs are no longer available today. Of course, it all depended on what government was in place at the time. There was a clear desire to include and extend that freedom to a segment of the population.

I was from a remote community, and that was a life-saver, if I may say so. I managed to get away from my community and its deleterious elements. Leaving did me a world of good. Now the government is trying to keep people in their communities. That explains the 30% disparity. It is the government's way of keeping Indians on reserve. There are times when the circumstances make life on reserve destructive, poisonous even. That seems to be their plan. That is my own perspective for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the vast gulf dividing Canada's aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups in terms of academic opportunity, it is conceivable that the government is trying to delegate the implementation and funding of education programs for aboriginal clients across the country. That is why I have my doubts about the measure in Bill C-60 to transfer $5 million to a charitable organization responsible for distributing post-secondary education scholarships to students registered under the Indian Act and to Inuit students.

I am not the only one who is skeptical about this type of announcement. Some observers, both here in Canada and abroad, have their doubts. In fact, in this case, the Conservatives are blindly delegating the implementation of public policy. Instead of focusing on the real disparity in funding for the training and education of first nations youth—young people who are disadvantaged and who must face adversity on a daily basis—the Conservatives are delegating everything to an organization. The organization may be well run, but it is a non-profit organization, a para-public or charitable organization, that is not necessarily accountable. The Canadian government must set the parameters for implementing measures that foster access to higher education for first nations because, in the end, it is bound by its fiduciary obligation to them.

The delegation of this task leaves me perplexed and skeptical to say the least. In fact, we know that $5 million is not a huge amount in any event, especially when we consider the number of young people who will have access to or who are old enough to have access to quality education, higher education. This leaves me perplexed.

I submit this respectfully.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, entitled Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

I do have a ruling with regard to this amendment.

The proposed amendment NDP-14 aims to amend the preamble of Bill S-8. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 770:

In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill.

In my opinion, no amendment has been adopted to warrant this amendment, and therefore it is inadmissible.

Considering the preamble unamended, shall the preamble carry?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, with regard to the suggested changes to the preamble, this is with respect to the issue around a water safety plan. We've outlined a number of elements that would be important to include as sort of setting a framework for where this legislation goes, such as, for example, looking at international best practices for supplying safe drinking water, relying on consistent and efficient operation of water treatment and distribution facilities, and looking at sources and the effective drinking water safety plan.

As well, we're emphasizing that the issue around consultation is really important, because the preamble talks about “working with First Nations”, yet we had the experience that the First Nations of Alberta Technical Services Advisory Group indicated. When they were asked to put together an impact analysis report, which was submitted to Indian and Northern Affairs in 2009, they had no feedback on that. They indicated that Bill S-8 was developed without any meaningful input “from first nations leaders, communities...or water system operators in Alberta”.

So there's little comfort that the regulations will actually be developed “in consultation”, given the track record with developing this bill, and I would encourage members to support our changes to the preamble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Unfortunately, I won't let them get there. I do have a ruling with regard to this amendment.

Bill S-8 provides, in clause 7, that the regulations made under this provision prevail over any laws or bylaws made by a first nation. The proposed amendment provides that the laws or the bylaws made by the first nation prevail over the regulations made under the provisions of Bill S-8. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of this chair, the amendment tends to introduce a new concept that is contrary to the principles of Bill S-8, and therefore it is inadmissible.

(Clause 7 agreed to)

The NDP has a proposal in amendment NDP-11 for a clause 7.1.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the member's contribution to this particular amendment. I want to be clear that according to the World Health Organization, its water safety plan approach is based on risk assessment, prioritization, and management of the water supply. Bill S-8 is enabling legislation with language worded in broad terms so regulations can be created to address a variety of needs.

As it's currently written, Bill S-8 does not prevent the adoption and implementation of the water safety plan approach. The government is committed to work with first nations and other stakeholders to develop federal regulations tailored to the needs of each region. That has been equally clear here at committee. Bill S-8 allows regulations to be adapted to the local context and determined in close collaboration with stakeholders and includes allowing communities to incorporate a water safety plan approach.

The adoption of this clause, in combination with other proposed amendments dealing with water safety plans, would allow the regulations developed under Bill S-8 to require that all first nations adhere to a water safety plan approach. This would reduce the flexibility of the legislation and could limit the potential for regulations to be tailored to the specific needs of first nations in respective regions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I do have a ruling here, as you are aware. I think the NDP have been notified of this intention.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” Therefore in the opinion of the chair the amendment attempts to introduce a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill S-8, and therefore it is inadmissible.

(On clause 4—Recommendation of Minister)

Moving to clause number 4, we have NDP-3.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you.

In support of our amendment, I'd like to refer you back to the Canadian Bar Association.

They specifically said:

While the wording about section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in the previous Bill S-11 has been revised, section 3 of S-8 remains problematic. We believe that the qualification “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the drinking water on First Nation lands” is in itself an explicit abrogation or derogation of existing Aboriginal or treaty rights pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The qualification in section 3 of Bill S-8 does not, in our view, ameliorate the constitutional problems identified in our earlier submissions on Bill S-11.

Then it goes on.

Obviously, this is coming from the Bar Association. Maybe the legal representation would like to comment on this as well.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate my colleague's input on this matter. The non-derogation clause included in Bill S-8 addresses the relationship between the proposed legislation and the protection of aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This clause specifically excludes from its scope any derogation or abrogation that is necessary to ensure the safety of first nations' drinking water.

Under Bill S-8, to be clear, a regulation could be created to limit activities on first nation lands around sources of drinking water in order to reduce health and safety risks of first nations being exposed to contaminated water. Thus, in the regulations, the rights of first nations to use land in certain ways may need to be infringed in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada test for justification.

If this clause were changed to a non-qualified non-derogation clause, as has been proposed, it may restrict the protection of source water on reserves. As demonstrated in previous Supreme Court rulings, legislation can validly affect the exercise of aboriginal rights if it meets the test for justifying interference with a right. That was set out in R. v. Sparrow. Including this non-derogation clause is meant to support the objectives of the bill, and in particular, the protection of source water on reserves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you for being here this morning. We appreciate your willingness to join us.

Colleagues, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday May 8, 2013, we'll now proceed to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-8, an act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, and the preamble are postponed.

We'll move on to clause 2, where some amendments have been proposed. We can only consider this if.... The amendments to the interpretation section of this bill can occur only if amendments have been adopted to warrant amendments in this part of the bill, so we will deal with clause 2 after we deal with the consideration of the schedule.

(On clause 3—Aboriginal rights)

We'll move to clause 3, where we have amendments NDP-1 and Liberal-1. These amendments are identical. We'll turn to NDP-1. If NDP-1 is adopted, we will obviously not hear from Liberal-1. If NDP-1 is defeated, Liberal-1 will be also.

Jean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I want to thank you for being here this morning. We are continuing our consideration of Bill S-8 today in this 76th meeting of Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we are joined by departmental officials who will be here for our assistance if necessary. Feel free to turn to them if in fact there is a question that they might be able to help you with as it relates to the consideration of the legislation we have before us.

If our officials will introduce themselves, we'll do that and then get into clause-by-clause.

First Nations Elections Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity here, quite late on Tuesday night, to speak to this particular bill.

It has been my viewpoint over the past two years on the aboriginal affairs committee that the Conservatives really have not been consulting in the correct fashion with first nations across the country. They come in with the wrong attitude. What we really need is to have first nations design the legislation that they would like to see enacted for their governments, their people and their nations. We can then take that in Parliament and understand how we can amend it so that it works.

However, we have the opposite way and we saw that with the accountability act, an act that really was an unfortunate piece of goods that came from the government. It was universally condemned by first nations. They did have a couple of supporters there, but they were some very specific people who had problems in their own particular communities. Those who understood the nature of the first nations-Canada relationship rejected the accountability act.

We are now at Bill S-8, the safe drinking water act, which we would think that everyone could get behind and support. However, once again, we see that the method of consultation and delivery of these bills is simply not working. The Conservative government is not providing the first nations with the opportunities to design the legislation so that it works for them. In this case, with the Senate putting forward Bill S-8, we also have the additional problem that we cannot make requirements for resources to ensure that first nations can actually meet standards that they would all want to meet.

The history so far of the majority government has been of one that refuses amendments. I think of Bill C-47, when we put forward some 45 amendments on a bill that only affected Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Of those 40-some amendments, the Conservatives turned down all of them, even though the amendments were designed to make the bill work better. They were not coming from people who had great opposition to the bill. They were coming from people who were concerned that the bill should work right.

In other words, once again the Conservatives failed to provide a methodology of consultation that delivered a product that people could get behind. I see that this pattern is being repeated with Bill S-6. The Conservatives did go into some consultation. They did hold meetings with first nations. They got recommendations from first nations about how this bill should be set up. The problem is that when the bill showed up, those recommendations were not carried forward in the fashion that the first nations had assumed.

We can see that in the problem with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The first Grand Chief, who was involved in the consultation side of it before the bill was put out, was pretty happy with what was going to happen. He said that, but then when the bill arrived in the Senate, the Manitoba Chief that I quoted in my question to the parliamentary secretary said, "no, that is not what we are after".

The consultation process is wrong. The consultation process does not deliver the goods for first nations. That is the problem here and the government has to change its direction in order to make legislation that truly represents first nations' points of view. The legislation is for the first nations. This legislation does not affect other people in Canada. The legislation is for the governments of the first nations. Therefore, it should really have those elements as the prime elements within the legislation.

That seems to be simple. We are not here to force our way upon other governments. We are here to provide guidance and accommodation and to make the system work.

Conservatives have a different view. They view it from that economic development lens. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that. Implicit within all the work that the Conservatives are doing is the idea that economic development for the first nations is the most important element. The most important element is not what the first nations want, not what the first nations deserve, but what will make economic development work. That is the Conservatives' point of view.

What we see in legislation over and over again is that message. What is important for economic development is the primary thing that we will see in legislation that comes from the Conservatives on first nations issues. If first nations go along with that, and the government can get some to go along with that, those will be the quotations that are used. Those will be the validations that Conservatives seek.

What really is needed? We really need to listen to the first nations. This legislation is for them, it is not for us. It is not telling us how we are getting elected. It is working with the first nations to come up with a system that they endorse, that they want for their very valid self-government efforts.

In the consultation process there was probably a little more give, a little more understanding, but when it came back to Ottawa, the changes were made to ensure that it worked for the government and it plans. That is the reality of what we are dealing with.

We have trouble with the bill. We also have trouble supporting it at second reading and taking it to committee. We have done this over and over again, but we are not getting any results. We are not getting the government to come onside for valid amendments to bills.

That is the process by which we all want to engage in here. This is what we want to do at committees. We want to have the opportunity to take what the people want, take what the government wants, come up with some compromises. We do not want this hard line attitude about the committees and about how amendments are dealt with at committees. That is not working for us. What we are saying is that will oppose this bill at second reading because it does not what the first nations want.

It is a tragedy that we cannot take the bill to committee with some kind of assurance that some of the important elements that need to be fixed in the bill will be fixed. However, when we beat our head against the wall and do not get results, then we should quit beating our head against the wall. That is sensible.

We can fight it here in Parliament. We can go to committee and hear the witnesses who will say that they want amendments and to make the bill work properly. That is what we have heard over and over again. With all the legislation that has come in front of us, it has always been the case that the first nations witnesses who testify want solutions. They do not want to go away empty handed.

It is a tragedy and it is wrong. That is not the way we should do government. Government is for the people. The people who are affected by legislation are the primary concern of the legislation. This is not for all of Canada. This is for first nations. They have the primary say here. If we go against that principle, we are really going against the principle of democracy if we are not allowing the people who are affected by the law to have the dominant say over how the law is put together.

If a law affects all Canadians, then we all have a say in it. The responsibility is different. However, in the case when we are making laws for first nations, first nations that have a constitutional right of self-government, that have been in this land for thousands of years, who signed treaties, they should have a say in it. We did not take the land away from them, we signed treaties with them. The Queen agreed about how these treaties were taken care of in 1763.

That is our history. Do we want to rewrite history? We should write it the way it has been done.

I really would like to get along with the government on legislation for first nations when it starts getting along with first nations and when it starts listening to first nations. This is what the legislation is for. These are the people who are affected by the legislation. It is not for businessmen, not for those who look upon reserves as potential new sources of land and resources. No, it is for those people. Let us remember that when we deal with legislation. If we do not, we are simply not doing the job that, as Canadians, we know we should be doing.

[Ramani Nadarajah, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Ramani Nadarajah, and I am counsel with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

CELA is a non-profit, public interest organization that was founded in 1970. It's an environmental law clinic that provides legal services to low-income people and disadvantaged communities by undertaking litigation and law reform to strengthen environmental protection.

We agree that improved access to safe drinking water is urgently needed in many first nations communities. The need for an appropriate regulatory regime for water and waste water in first nation communities has been highlighted in numerous reports, which I believe have been alluded to by previous speakers.

CELA has reviewed the bill and we believe that for the bill to achieve its goal of ensuring safe drinking water for first nations communities while protecting aboriginal and constitutional and treaty rights, three key issues need to be addressed.

First, constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights need to be afforded protection under the bill. Second, a multi-barrier approach for first nations water resource management should be incorporated in the bill. Third, first nations governance structures need to be respected.

I am going to deal with the first issue now, which I think the Bar Association has already addressed, the issue of non-derogation in clause 3. CELA notes that the Supreme Court of Canada has already established the test for infringement of protected aboriginal and treaty rights for legitimate legislative objectives under the Sparrow decision. Given the existing jurisprudence on this issue, the limiting section in clause 3 of the bill is unnecessary, in our view.

Consequently, as we noted in our brief that was submitted earlier, our position on this issue is similar to what was addressed before. We don't think that particular section is necessary, but we also note that if there is a non-derogation clause, we submit that the one included in Ontario's Clean Water Act, which was designed for the protection of the sources of drinking water, is the most appropriate provision.

That provision simply reads as follows in section 82 of the Clean Water Act:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada as recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act....

The second issue the bill needs to address is to provide a more detailed provision about how to improve water resource management on first nation land. To a great extent, the bill's implementation will be dictated by the content of its regulations. However, we note that the list of regulation-making powers provided in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill fail to clearly ensure a multi-barrier approach for first nation drinking water systems, as recommended by the Walkerton and North Battleford inquiry reports.

A multi-barrier approach would require the following: reliable certification of labs; clear oversight and reporting responsibilities; clear delineation of the roles of health and environment water officials, including first nation officials and their governments; reporting of adverse events; delineating responsibility for responding to adverse events, and clear protocols; public involvement of community members, disclosure and transparency; means of receiving expert third-party advice, such as in Ontario through the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council; and outlining of resources and funding mechanisms, including for remote and small systems; and providing for infrastructure planning over time. CELA admits that a multi-barrier approach needs to be incorporated into the bill, otherwise it will remain simply as vague enabling legislation.

Finally, CELA admits that there needs to be recognition and protection of first nations' rights over the governance of water on reserve lands. In this regard, we have concerns about paragraph 5(1)(b) of the bill. That paragraph states that the regulations may “confer on any person or body any legislative, administrative, judicial or other power that the Governor in Council considers necessary to effectively regulate drinking water systems and waste water systems”.

The generic nature of this clause is a concern, given that the expertise and professional qualification of “any person” is undefined. That provision has the potential to result in possible loss of first nations' ability to control and manage their lands and water systems.

In addition, we note that clause 7, which is the conflict clause in Bill S-8 , provides that regulations may prevail over laws or by-laws made by a first nations to the extent of the conflict in respect of protection of drinking water.

Both of these clauses, in addition to clause 3 that I discussed earlier, have the potential to undermine the right of first nations to self-govern. Therefore, the committee should consider revisions to these provisions to ensure that this is not the case. Those are all my submissions, subject to any questions you may have.

[Christopher Devlin, Executive Member, National Aboriginal Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you. I note that it's already past six or seven in Victoria, so I'm fine at this point. It's not quite as early as the last time.

Our comments today are really focusing on the non-derogation clause of the bill, but I want to start by saying that it is critical that there be safe drinking water on reserve. The CBA supports that. The bill, by design, is a framework bill; it's enabling legislation for subsequent regulations. That's fairly obvious, and there's a great deal of flexibility in the bill, particularly with respect to subclause 4(1), subclause 5(4), and clause 7. I'll be coming back to that at the end of my opening comments.

Our concern—and this survives from the previous iteration of the bill, BillS-11—is now with clause 3 of Bill S-8. That's where there's this exception or ability of the regulations to derogate and abrogate the aboriginal rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nation lands.

Our simple point to the committee is that we don't believe this is necessary and we don't believe it is required for the bill to be effective as it's drafted. We don't see anything that suggests that it's necessary for the bill to be implemented, and we also question whether it's constitutionally valid to have this kind of language in the legislation. When we made previous submissions, we have talked about the test for infringement that was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow decision. I'm sure you've heard testimony about that. It does place safety and conservation of resources at the top of the priority list when one is looking at potential infringements, and then you go down in order after that, to the provision of sustenance and ceremonial and traditional practices for first nations, then to commercial rights, and finally to other kinds of users of resources.

I want to dwell on that for a little bit, because inherent to aboriginal rights and to treaty rights is the safe exercise of those rights, which is something that may have been missed by the drafters of the bill. Safety and the preservation of resources are actually inherent, and the courts have discussed this in a variety of contexts, to the exercise of aboriginal rights. Most of the time the courts have discussed it in the context of hunting. You can't hunt in an unsafe manner. You can't shoot from your pickup truck on the side of the road. You actually have to engage in safe hunting practices, and I think with respect to any aboriginal rights involving water and water management, those have to be exercised in a safe manner.

So we really see this qualification as being unnecessary, because inherent to aboriginal rights and treaty rights is safe management, ensuring the safety of the resource so that it is managed and applied in a safe manner.

The other point that I want to bring up is that because this is framework legislation, we don't have the regulations in front of the committee. We don't really know what they're going to be. I did mention that it's a very flexible bill and that the bill anticipates a variety of regulatory regimes across the country. There could be one uniform regulation. There could be a multitude of regulations—we don't know at this point. And for us, that raises a concern or there being not only a multitude of federal regulations but also the potential for the incorporation by reference of provincial water regimes in lieu of federal regulatory regimes. We're not sure of the degree to which those provincial regimes will honour the section 35 rights of the first nations in question. Those provincial regimes have not been developed, frankly, with any reference, for the most part, to section 35 rights, and so it's quite an open question on how that is all going to interrelate.

Here I think of Chief Roland Twinn's earlier comments. He was anticipating the potential for significant litigation. I think there's a real risk of that here, particularly when we're thinking about the derogation of the section 35 rights by referentially incorporating provincial water management regimes.

I think the ideal way to proceed is to develop regulations on a case-by-case basis with the affected first nations regarding safe drinking water on their particular reserves. Then regulations are drafted specific to those first nations, whether it's the first nations that were here today or other witnesses that you've heard from.

To do all of that does not require the derogation clause or the exception at the end of clause 3 of the bill.

I'll leave those as my opening comments.

[Terry Hancock, Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen members of the committee.

The Canadian Bar Association is very pleased to be appearing before you this morning to speak to Bill S-8, which is a very important piece of legislation for Canada's aboriginal people.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national organization that represents over 37,000 lawyers from across Canada.

The letter you received was prepared by our aboriginal law section, a group of lawyers from across the country who are specialists in aboriginal law.

One of the Canadian Bar Association's objectives is to improve the law and the administration of justice. It is through that lens that we have examined Bill S-8.

With that, I'm very pleased to introduce you to Mr. Christopher Devlin, a well-known expert in aboriginal law, and well known to this committee.

Mr. Devlin is here on Victoria time to address the main points of the bill.

Thank you.

[Grand Chief Roland Twinn, Grand Chief, Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta]

Good morning. I'll try to be brief. Most of what I was going to speak of was mentioned by the other representatives today. I'm going to allow some time for Chief Rose to use up some of our time together.

First off, the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Treaties 6, 7, and 8 in Alberta has, from the very beginning, made significant efforts to work with the Harper government to fix the deplorable state of first nations' drinking water systems. Our efforts have been rewarded by the government with political spin, broken promises, and a meaningless piece of legislation that will do nothing to ensure safe drinking water for first nation people.

We also have the exact same concerns as the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, although I do have a little bit of a different view. I do not believe that a self-government agreement will exempt you from this legislation. I believe there's a clause in there that says this is enforced, in effect, with those first nations who have self-government agreements. The bill does not respect our section 35 rights, and our nation, the Sawridge First Nation, has exercised our section 35 rights to self-government and self-determination. We have developed our own constitution, our own legislation, and we do hold 15 areas of jurisdiction to ourselves.

This legislation, in my view, is going to make a lot of lawyers rich, and that's all it's going to accomplish. We are going to have to take this to court, to either judicial reviews or actual cases. There are 25 first nations in Treaty 8 Alberta and our situations are all completely different.

As the Sawridge First Nation, we don't have a drinking water system of our own. We are a small nation. We've applied to the federal government for over 20 years to control our own water and sewer systems. We've been repeatedly denied by the government. Our water is provided by the Town of Slave Lake municipality. We have taken advantage of the program for monitoring safe drinking water. The water standards are higher at the federal level is what we have found. Some of the contaminants in the water are at a high level according to the federal standards; however, when I get the letter from Health Canada, it says our water is provided by a municipality and is within provincial standards.

I'm not sure if the people of the Sawridge First Nation would agree that we would fall under now lesser standards using the provincial government's standards.

This has been echoed. There have been several expert panels who have said they need resources prior to legislation regulation. There have been so many times that we've seen these types of things being pushed through.

On section 35, the expert panel on first nations drinking water did an independent legal analysis of section 35 rights and concluded that there's a sound legal basis for first nations' right of self-government over water in their communities. Canada has refused to consult with us about the implications of Bill S-8 in this regard.

We're in the 21st century. You would think that the draconian ways of dealing with first nations of this country have dissipated, but they seem to be alive and well.

To top all of this off, the only part of Bill S-8 that actually does anything is the liability protection provisions that excuse Canada from all responsibilities for the safety of first nations' drinking water. If the bill were truly named, it would be “Breach of fiduciary duty to first nations and protection of liability for the Government of Canada, and the abdication of its moral and legal responsibilities for safe drinking water for first nations act”. That's how we feel.

I will turn it over to Chief Rose; she has a few words to say.

Thank you.

[Grand Chief Craig Makinaw, Grand Chief, Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations]

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you and good morning, members of Parliament, staff, chiefs, and technicians who are here today.

I am Chief Craig Makinaw from Ermineskin Cree Nation and also the Grand Chief of the Confederacy of Treaty 6, representing 17 first nations.

I'd like to introduce one of our council members from Ermineskin. Laurelle White is sitting with me.

We are tabling a written submission with the committee. I'm not going to read the submission but rather highlight some of the key points related to our objection to the whole legislation.

We have travelled from Ermineskin and Treaty 6 to appear before this committee on Bill S-8. Our ancestors entered into treaty with the British crown to allow for the Queen's subjects to live in our territories. When our ancestors entered into treaty with the British crown, water was included in the treaty for as long as the rivers flow. These were the words used at the time of treaty-making. In any discussion on water and the use of water, our treaties must be considered. Our ancestors did not give up water. Our ancestors tied the treaty-making to the waters flowing. The crown did not ask for the waters.

When we talk about water and the actions of the Parliament of Canada, the honour of the crown arises. Treaties are important constitutional documents for the state of Canada. Under international, Commonwealth, and Canadian law, Canada could not exist without the treaties made with our ancestors. The treaties underpin the whole state of Canada.

In light of this foundation, what is the constitutional authority of Canada to impose a legislative framework on the treaty first nations? Where is the honour of the crown?

In the Haida case, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote:

The honour of the Crown also infuses the processes of treaty making and treaty interpretation. In making and applying treaties, the Crown must act with honour and integrity, avoiding even the appearance of 'sharp dealing'.

Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing aboriginal sovereignty with assumed crown sovereignty and to define aboriginal rights guaranteed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

It is clear from the court cases that the Supreme Court of Canada, on the issue of the honour of the crown, is relevant when dealing with treaty rights. This is the case even when those rights have not been proven. The assertion of the right engages the government in a process to consult with first nations. It cannot be overridden by Parliament.

There is a positive obligation on the government to act in an honourable way in dealing with treaty peoples. In the case of the drafting and submitting to the Senate Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, no process was engaged with first nations.

The proposed legislation won't change the constitutional rights of the treaty first nations and put our nations in harm's way under various provincial schemes. There are ongoing boil water advisories across Indian country. This legislation does not propose any solutions. Rather, the legislation puts first nations in the direct path of an oncoming freight train.

At the same time, government is busy undermining programs that might have assisted first nations to avoid the whole process. We recently learned of the cancellation of the drinking water quality program. The government officials wrote:

The dedication and on-going support to this program enabled this program to grow and mature into a very successful and respected research program by First Nations communities across Canada.

Was it due to its success that the government cancelled the whole thing?

To quote the next paragraph:

I regret to inform you that Health Canada will not continue with the Drinking Water Quality Program after March 31, 2014. The Drinking Water Program will focus on enabling the communities to monitor drinking water quality as per the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality.

How is this going to be done? The legislation is pushing our nations into the hands of the provinces and private corporations. This is a violation of the treaty. Programs and services that are started and cut by civil servants do not honour the intentions of the crown. These decisions are in contravention of any semblance of democratic processes. Legislation is drafted. We are invited to speak, but none of our words are taken into consideration. There are no amendments. There is no process.

We have complained to the United Nations as we struggle to uphold the honour of the crown, but the successor state of Canada throws dirt on the crown on a daily basis with these kinds of bills and acts. This is not bringing honour to the crown. We do not give our free, prior, and informed consent to this legislation.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation today. I have some other motions from AoTC, from our chiefs' meetings.

[Chief Charles Weaselhead, Chief, Blood Tribe/Kainai]

Thank you.

[Witness speaks in Blackfoot language]

Good morning, Chairman, and members of the standing committee. On behalf of the Blood Tribe, thank you for the opportunity to address you on Bill S-8.

As you know, the Blood Tribe has a population of just under 12,000 on a huge tract of land, so Bill S-8 will affect us not only with regard to our constitution but also in the way the bill is delivered through regulations in our community.

The Blood Tribe, of course, has expressed concerns with this bill, through submissions and representations, from its inception as Bill S-11. Unfortunately, these efforts have not met the intended goals as the existing legislation, Bill S-8, will not provide safe drinking water for first nations peoples. Bill S-8 will put in place a legislative framework that will place the responsibility and liability for safe drinking water systems on the shoulders of the first nations chiefs and councils without giving them the financial resources and the capacity to carry out the responsibilities. Appendix A shows the amount of resources required to make sure we come up to speed with what is necessary for safe drinking water and wastewater management.

By transferring the liability to the first nations, Bill S-8 absolves the federal and provincial governments of liability. We do not see this as the proper exercise of the federal crown's fiduciary duty to first nations, a duty that has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Bill S-8 will not provide safe drinking water to first nations communities. It will only saddle first nations government with a responsibility that they do not have the resources to carry out. When they fail to carry out that responsibility, they will have broken the law and will be subject to punitive measures under the law. That is the situation that will be brought about by Bill S-8.

Earlier, I spoke to Bill S-11, and that was specifically what was stated in there, that the number one priority was to provide the necessary resources before regulation or legislation was set out. How does this scenario bring about safe drinking water for first nations communities? How is this the solution for the desperate and deplorable state of drinking water for first nations communities which has drawn worldwide attention?

In May 2003, Indian Affairs' own assessment of water and wastewater systems in first nations communities found that 75% of first nations water systems in Canada posed a risk and required a massive investment, having been neglected for decades. In 2006, the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations, commissioned by the federal government, found that the primary issue was insufficient resources for first nations water systems and recommended that adequate resources be a precondition to any legislation. That is spelled out clearly in appendix A of the submission by the Blood Tribe.

The expert panel realized that a regulatory regime would not address the situation. Creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention, and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management, and governance.

In 2007, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples in its final report on safe drinking water for first nations recommended that the resource gap for first nations water systems be addressed first as a precondition to any new legislation, and that first nations be consulted about the development of new legislation.

Recently, the national engineering assessment of first nations drinking water systems, commissioned by the federal government, found that a $4.9-billion investment is required to ensure that first nations peoples get the same level of drinking water services that are available to other Canadians. Of that, $162 million is needed in Alberta and $30 million is needed in the Blood Tribe. The United Nations has recognized a human right to safe drinking water. Without the required $4.9 billion investment in first nations water systems, this bill will violate our human rights for safe drinking water.

The national engineering assessment also found that in Alberta 64% of water systems cannot afford qualified operators. Only three out of 82 first nations water systems are operating without risk. Some 26% of first nations water systems are high risk, deliver inadequate water supplies, and need immediate corrective action.

These reports, panels, and committees on first nation drinking water systems all come to the same conclusion: only resources will ensure the safety of first nations' drinking water. Legislation cannot create safe drinking water. How can anyone, in the face of credible expert advice, pass this legislation? The $4.9-billion shortfall needs to be addressed. That is what will begin the process of ensuring the safety of water for our first nation communities.

As far as legal rights are concerned, it has been said that the bill is not about rights. That is not true. Safe drinking water for our people is our priority, and always has been. However, Bill S-8 not only fails to provide for safe drinking water, it also gives rise to serious legal issues that need to be addressed. These include no consultation.

Canada is legally required to meaningfully consult with the Blood Tribe whenever it contemplates action that may adversely affect our constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights. Given that the bill provides for the derogation of such rights, Canada's duty to consult has been triggered; however, there has been no consultation with the Blood Tribe.

As far as our band council authority goes, the Blood Tribe council has authority under the Indian Act to pass bylaws dealing with the construction and regulation of wells, cisterns, reservoirs, and other water supplies. The bill provides that the regulations may prevail over any of our laws, including any that we make under the Indian Act respecting these matters. This bill amounts to regulations having the ability to usurp our statutory authority to make these laws.

The expert panel on first nations drinking water did an independent legal analysis of section 35 rights and concluded that there was a sound, legal basis for first nations' right of self government over water in our communities. Canada has refused to consult with us about the implications of Bill S-8 in this regard.

As far as third-party powers are concerned, the bill provides for the conferring of very broad legislative, administrative, judicial, or other powers on some unknown third party, who can, among other things, appoint an unidentified person or entity to manage our drinking water system. Essentially, it could punish us if we failed to adhere to the regulations, through the imposition of fines or imprisonment, or both. The bill further allows this third party to seize and detain things when verifying compliance with the regulations, and to obtain warrants to search places.

On imposition of liability, the bill provides authority to deem us to be the owner of a water system that is not ours. As a result of being deemed an owner, we would consequently possess certain liabilities that we would not otherwise have. At the same time, the bill makes provision for extensive liability protection for third parties and federal and provincial representatives.

On the matter of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Canada has endorsed that declaration, which states that legislation of this nature must be developed with the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples. A half-day engagement session on the legislation does not meet this obligation.

Where do we go from here?

We have sent out a profile of the Blood Tribe in appendix A, which is attached to this submission. You will see that we are obligated, through our tribal principles as expressed in Kainayssini, to protect our rights. What Bill S-8 proposes will adversely impact our rights. We are therefore opposed to it for these reasons. We are not opposed to safe drinking water or wastewater management. That must be at the forefront.

For these reasons, as well as the underlying and fundamental reasons we have mentioned above, we do not believe that amendments alone can remedy the problems inherent in this bill. We are of the view that Bill S-8 ought not to proceed at all, because Canada has not discharged its legal duty to meaningfully consult with first nations, including the Blood Tribe. Canada cannot continue to act in disregard of its duty.

We are of the further view that prior to this proposed legislation moving forward in the House, meaningful consultation should occur. We therefore recommend that this bill not be passed or enforced until such consultation has taken place. Additionally, any proposed solution to the issue of safe drinking water, whether by legislation, policy, or otherwise, ought to ensure that practical solutions are provided so that our people ultimately have access to safe drinking water. That ought to be the focus of any action Canada takes, rather than on violating our rights and imposing a paternalistic and punitive approach to the problem.

Our submission does not constitute consultation. We respectfully submit our concerns about Bill S-8 to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. On behalf of the Blood Tribe chief and council, thank you for giving us this opportunity to provide the Blood Tribe's submission.

[Jim Ransom, Director, Tehotiiennawakon, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne]

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm specifically going to address the regulations proposed in Bill S-8.

My name is Jim Ransom. I serve as the director of Tehotiiennawakon and oversee the environment, economic development, and emergency measures for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. I'm going to address in particular clauses 4, 5, and 6 in Bill S-8. They really represent the heart of Bill S-8.

While we support safe drinking water with appropriate standards, we cannot support the way Bill S-8 is written. In regard to developing standards, we have prepared a proposal to develop our own water and regulatory framework. We have submitted it to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

It is comprehensive and will meet and exceed the requirements in Bill S-8. It has been prepared in cooperation with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Building relationships around common interests and ensuring safe drinking water for all peoples is important to us. We actually have letters of support for our approach from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and from the Quebec Ministry of the Environment.

However, the approach we've taken is not envisioned by Bill S-8. Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7 put us to the back of the regulatory bus. Subclause 5(1) deems us owners of our water systems but fails to recognize our authority to self-regulate those same systems. Instead, it transfers liability without consideration of the condition of the assets being transferred to us, and it sets us up for failure without adequate resources to ensure transferred systems are safe and can be maintained.

Bill S-8 recognizes provincial water laws, but not first nation water laws. Clause 6 allows the Minister of Indian Affairs and our Minister of Health to enter into agreements made under the regulations “with any province, corporation or other body” and related to “administration and enforcement of regulations”, but it doesn't do the same with first nations.

To address these concerns, we offer the following recommendation: that clauses 4, 5, and 6 be amended by including first nations as entities that can be conferred legislative, administrative, judicial, and other powers necessary to effectively regulate drinking water systems and wastewater systems. In other words, don't just make us owners: give us the responsibility to regulate our own systems. The development of regulations must be done with the active involvement of first nations and should have room for recognition of first nations' jurisdiction and authority.

The last concern we have with Bill S-8 is in the sense of how it confers to the provinces jurisdiction over first nation water systems. In doing that, it doesn't consider the reality. Provincial water laws were developed for a different audience. They were developed for their own municipalities. They were not developed with first nations in mind.

For first nations, we have unique circumstances that are not considered by the provinces. We have cultural traditions that are not considered. We have operators in our communities who in many cases have not been trained to provincial standards.

Also, how you deal in remote communities with on-reserve water and wastewater systems is totally different from how you would deal with it in, say, Toronto or Ottawa. That's not being considered.

For us in particular, we're in two provinces. If you're going to confer and delegate down to the provinces, which province? That's a question that we have in particular.

We feel that the legislation can be enhanced by including provisions that allow first nations who have the abilities to develop their own regulations—or groups of first nations working together—to self-regulate. That's the direction the provinces are going in right now because of budget cutbacks. They're trying to get out of the regulatory business. And suddenly in Ontario you're giving them 133 first nations that they will now have responsibility for, with no resources.

We've spoken with them. They're not ready to take on that burden. But we are, because we see it as a responsibility.

With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague Micha Menczer.

[Brian David]

Coming from Akwesasne, we are a community of about 16,000. If you're not aware, our community is divided by the international border and a provincial line. For this very reason, in the early 1990s we negotiated a protocol agreement with Canada to deal with some of the unique features and issues that come up as a result of these multi-jurisdictional areas.

We've been an active participant in the discussions that have taken place over the last several years surrounding the development of federal legislation to address the safety of drinking water for first nations. Last year the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne provided oral and written testimony on Bill S-8 before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

Regarding first nations' views on the expert panel, unfortunately, this has not continued with the drafting of the Bill S-8. We feel there was a lack of consultation and accommodation. I think this is a feature of the shortcomings that we hope to raise with the committee today.

As I've mentioned, we've reached milestones with Canada in self-government negotiations— first with the protocol agreement, then with active negotiations on lands and [Inaudible--Editor]...sectoral agreement. We have an agreement in principle on governance and relationships. We're actively involved in a negotiating mode with Canada for self-government.

I have mentioned before that we have in place a protocol agreement as a background. As an annex to that agreement, in the area of water and water regulation, it's already there. This particular act supersedes and oversees that, which causes great concern to us. The land and sectoral agreement that we're negotiating would encompass many of the issues that are currently being addressed in federal legislation. It is and always has been our opinion that the water quality standards can be established by first nations, that first nations who have the capacity to develop their own regulation and have a tradition in that, should do so. But they should do so in a manner that's not inconsistent with the standards set federally or provincially. All that is to be done should be left to the first nation. It has to be done that way because we all come from different and unique situations across the country.

One issue of particular concern has to do with the derogation clause, clause 3, within Bill S-8. It abrogates and derogates aboriginal and treaty rights to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nation lands. We take strong exception to clause 3, as it intends to derogate from the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples guaranteed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Aboriginal and treaty rights are inherently protective of the natural world, including waters. They're based on living in peace and harmony with our surrounding environment. The waters are viewed as bloodlines of our earth, our mother, and our survival depends on ensuring the health and safety of the waters. There is no need for a derogation clause that would take away these rights; they are inherently protective of the waters, and thus to the health and safety of our peoples.

If the existing provincial water laws already recognize and affirm aboriginal and treaty rights consistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the federal water legislation proposed for first nations should be consistent with both the protections afforded in the Constitution Act, and the provisions within provincial water laws that recognize those rights. It is strongly recommended that clause 3 of Bill S-8 be rewritten so that it is consistent with the Constitution Act and provincial water laws, with wording along this line:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the regulations is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I'll now turn this over to my colleague, Mr. Jim Ransom.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we'll call to order the 75th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

We are continuing today our study of Bill S-8. We have representatives from across the country. It is our privilege to have our witnesses here today, and we certainly appreciate folks coming from different parts of the country to reflect on this bill and to give us their testimony.

Colleagues, there have just been some small changes to the schedule of the witness list. We are going to hear from first nation communities first, and then in the final 45 minutes we'll hear from representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. We're going to cut it into two separate panels of witnesses, which will enable us to reflect a little more coherently on the bill. I do apologize to our colleagues for not being more clear about that in the information we sent out.

With no further ado, we do want to hear from our first nation representatives from across this country. We're going to begin by hearing from the representatives of the Mohawk Council, and I believe it's Acting Chief David who will begin our rounds of testimony. We will hear from the different representatives for 10 minutes and then we'll have some questions for you.

We'll turn it over to Acting Chief David.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

The foreign investment protection act is another piece of legislation that just went through. The foreign investment protection act means if we change legislation regulations in Canada and it does not fit what the foreign investors had expected from our country, then they have the right to complain, to take action.

All of a sudden now we are in a position where regulations that are decided somewhere else by someone else other than this Parliament can make that a probability, perhaps a reality. Those are things we have to think about with this.

We are changing the way we are doing business. Is the way we are changing doing business the way we want to do that? I would say right now that, to me, amendments to the bill are needed.

I understand why people want to have the bill, the necessity to do the things that make sense with the bill. It is good to have regulations that can recognize inflation and the changing nature of our society, that can do those things that make sense. I do not have a problem with that. I am in favour of that, but I am not in favour of impeding our sovereignty in any way through changing the way we make regulations. That is clear. I do not have to think twice about that.

When we talk about Bill S-8, about the safety of drinking water on our first nations reserves, we are talking about a law that enables regulations, and those regulations will probably be made in provinces. Those provinces will change those regulations for safe drinking water as time goes on. That is the reality of the situation.

We have a fiduciary responsibility to first nations in the government. We need to ensure that any changes that are made to regulations are run by the first nations to whom we will apply this law. Therefore, we need to have the opportunity to look at changes, to consult with our first nations about changes that are made by provinces if we adopt their regulations to govern safe drinking water on first nations reserves. There is another instance of why we need to look at this legislation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here at 11 o'clock at night to have the opportunity to speak to the Statutory Instruments Act.

First, I am not very pleased that the bill has come from the Senate. I find this is an inappropriate direction for legislation of this nature. It should have come from the House of Commons.

Right now, at the aboriginal affairs committee, we are dealing with another piece of legislation, Bill S-8, which also came from the Senate. That legislation has been panned by almost everyone who is standing in front of our committee because it does not have the ability to provide resources for the things that are required within the bill.

A Senate bill cannot put a financial burden on the government. Therefore, that bill is not effective. It is also the wrong direction, as well.

That aside, when we look at the bill, it is an interesting one. I think we have all learned a lot through this debate tonight, and I am sure the debate will continue on it because it is a very important bill. As my colleagues pointed out, it would make 170 decisions of the government legal after being illegal for a number of years.

There is a lot to regulation. There are 3,000 regulations on the books, consisting of 30,000 pages. There are also 1,000 draft regulations every year. That says that those 3,000 regulations are being changed constantly. There is change within the system. That change has the scrutiny of Parliament, its officers and its staff. That is taken care of within the confines of our Government of Canada.

We now have a bill that would open up change to our regulations from a variety of sources that we would no longer have control over. What is going to happen here?

In the bill, there is a section which says, “The power to make a regulation also includes the power to incorporate by reference an index, rate or number”. Now, we do not have definitions of those three things, but I guess we can assume that they cover most of the gamut of what regulations are. It goes on to say, “as it exists on a particular date or as it is varied from time to time”. Therefore, as it varies, it can be incorporated. It goes on to say, “established by Statistics Canada, the Bank of Canada”, all good institutions. I do not have a problem with those institutions helping with regulations. Then it says, “or a person or body other than the regulation-making authority”

As my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca said, this can be Canadian regulations, it can be provincial regulations, or it can be international regulations.

We now have a situation where we are going to incorporate regulations under Parliament that are made in other countries. It sounds good. Countries make choices. They may be very good choices. However, those regulations can also be varied in those countries and we have no control over that. We would have no control over what would go on with those regulations when they are varied in those countries.

How does that fit with sovereignty? I am not here to sell Canadian sovereignty. That is not my goal in this Parliament, I am sorry. Canadians need to control the regulations that are created by Parliament. They need to have a say over how those regulations are changed, whether they come through the provinces, whether they come through bodies in Canada, or whether they come through international bodies. That is quite clearly the case. That is what most Canadians will want.

What we have is a situation where we need some amendments to the bill. We need to limit the ability to take on changes that are made in bodies outside our country. We need to ensure that changes made to regulations that are made within Canada have the scrutiny of Parliament through its procedures, through its committees that are set up to do exactly that. Those are types of amendments that could be made to the legislation to make it more palatable to most people when they understand the nature of what is going on with this innocuous named bill.

It does not sound very threatening and, if handled correctly in the interest of Canadians, with the understanding of Canadian sovereignty, it works out quite well, unless it is used as a tool in international trade agreements to take on regulations so that we can make trade deals with other countries and take on their regulations.

We are into the European Union right now. The European Union will demand a lot of things of Canada. It is going to demand that Canada do things the way the European Union does them. That is what it wants, if we want to have a trade deal with the European Union.

This is an opportunity to give the European Union exactly that. We could take on the regulations of the European Union for many things. We could put them into our system, and in the future, if they make changes to those regulations, those will fit into our system as well.

How does that fit with sovereignty? I do not buy it. I stand here today and say that if I do not hear a better argument against this, I cannot buy this legislation. If I do not see some kind of amendments in it that actually protect my country from having changes made to its laws by other countries without the scrutiny of this Parliament, I cannot buy that. That is not for me. If it is for you, then I say you should go back to your constituents and tell them what you are doing with Canada.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I think the question is on liability. It sounds like, from the municipalities, they're a little concerned that Bill S-8 confers some liability to the local municipality.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

There were concerns that there might be some untoward effects on these agreements coming out of Bill S-8, which haven't been cleaned up in the bill other than in a vague letter from a minister.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Are you confident that you will be able to continue with those initiatives you've undertaken to date if Bill S-8 is passed?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today.

I want to start with Chief Vicaire. It seems that the Atlantic Policy Congress has done a tremendous amount of work, has taken the initiative, and is moving forward.

Now, I want to point out that all the work you've done has been done without Bill S-8 in place, so can you speak to the fact that you've been able to go ahead and take charge of these initiatives without this particular legislation? The government is saying that we need this legislation in order to have these kinds of things happen, but clearly you're moving ahead.

[Robert Howsam, Executive Director, Ontario First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members, on behalf of the Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation. I want to thank you for asking us to provide our technical perspective on this issue and to highlight some of the challenges that Ontario first nations encounter when delivering safe drinking water.

Our presentation is only of a technical perspective and not intended to replace the perspectives of the Assembly of First Nations, the Chiefs of Ontario or Ontario first nation leadership regarding the whole range of issues around consultation, finance, aboriginal land, and treaty rights.

In cooperation with individual communities in Ontario and affiliated first nation tribal councils and technical units, OFNTSC delivers advice on infrastructure and provides operator training to address the evolving needs of first nations. The Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation is active in the area of water and waste water—in particular in operator training and engineering services. We have staff look at environmental issues, project planning and development, fire safety, fire protection, housing and environment, and engineering services. Obviously the focus of the presentation today is on the drinking water issue.

There are many parallels between the circumstances of Ontario first nations now and the conditions that existed in Ontario municipalities prior to Walkerton in May 2000. However in the years following the publishing of the Walkerton inquiry report, the promulgation of regulations from the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act 2002 and the Ontario Clean Water Act 2006 have successfully legislated municipalities and other provincial agencies to provide a broad safety net that minimizes the risk of releasing unsafe drinking water to consumers.

There is a high price to be paid for this safety net in the form of abatement, compliance, enforcement, and resources. Unfortunately, the delivery of reliable and safe drinking water to many first nations in Ontario remains unavailable. When the Ontario drinking water regulations are compared to other Canadian regions, the key difference in Ontario's case is that the safety net known as the agency—the Ontario Clean Water Agency—will come to the aid of any failing Ontario municipal drinking water authority. The cost of the agency's service is borne by the owner of that water system and could potentially include legislation and investigation.

Currently first nations and the federal government do not have an Ontario-like compliance abatement or enforcement mechanism. Without these types of mechanisms, first nations' boil water orders continue to illustrate the long-term health and safety issues that can only be remedied through significant capital reinvestment and facility upgrades. That's true in terms of the high risk facing at least 30 Ontario first nations.

The formula for balancing ownership and liability in Bill S-8 may in fact serve to reduce Ontario first nations' autonomy and increase the liability of chiefs and councils. The elements that comprise the Ontario municipal drinking water quality management system are an effective yet very costly model to administer due to the safety net features. Ontario first nations would benefit from a similar safety net. However, the additional cost required to administer it would be impractical given existing federal allocations. Already stressed capital and operation budgets would never be able to subsidize the safety net and would require significant new funding streams.

The notion of incorporation by reference is of particular significance to Ontario simply because of the complexity of the Ontario legislation. So if incorporation by reference happens, it must be noted that in the case of Ontario first nations, there is a very different reality in terms of their size, geography, capacity, etc.. That difference is even true when compared to most remote or rural municipalities, let alone urban centres. There are currently 30 communities in Ontario that only have winter road access via ground travel and receive their electrical services through on-site diesel generation, which brings a whole set of challenges on its own.

The national engineering assessment, which was mentioned earlier, estimated that the cost of addressing first nations' water facilities in Ontario would be $241 million, with another $4 million annually required for operations and maintenance.

Incorporation by reference would only drive these numbers even higher because of the complexity of the provincial legislation.

Now I'm going to turn it over to Matt, to talk a little bit about the current infrastructure realities.

[John Paul, Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat]

Thank you, Chief Vicaire.

Good morning, committee members. I'm John Paul, the executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress. I'm here today to speak on behalf of our chiefs regarding an approach to Bill S-8 and how our Atlantic chiefs are working to find proactive and innovative solutions to addressing the current state of water and wastewater systems in our region and in all our communities.

As you heard from Chief Vicaire, APC has been involved with this file since 2006, beginning with the presentation to the expert panel. Since that time, the APC have explored ways of addressing the current state of water systems in Atlantic Canada. With the release of the Neegan Burnside study on first nation water and wastewater systems in Atlantic Canada, it has given us a glimpse or a snapshot of current water issues.

To that end, the APC began to look at innovative options. The first thing we did was to have an asset condition assessment done. APC contracted Dalhousie University's Centre for Water Resource Studies to lead the water and wastewater asset condition assessment. The objective of that study was to perform asset condition assessments of water and wastewater systems in first nation communities in Atlantic Canada.

The study further entailed a site audit of water and wastewater treatment facilities and an assessment of the distribution and collection systems. The Neegan Burnside study identified that approximately $45 million was needed to address current shortfalls based on the safe drinking water protocols—although it was only a snapshot in time. It did not include distribution, collection, and other costs, which are critical elements in determining the actual cost.

The asset condition assessment study would also aid in identifying shortfalls in operation and maintenance for both water and wastewater systems through site visits to all Atlantic communities.

A second bit of work was a pilot for benchmark regulations. Bill S-8 states that the regulatory regime is required to ensure that residents of first nation communities have access to safe drinking water, and it commits to working with first nation communities directly to develop proposals for the regulations to be made under the bill. APC has contracted the Centre for Water Resource Studies to develop a regulatory benchmark for water and waste water in Atlantic first nation communities. Dr. Gagnon's report proposed benchmark regulations adopted from the most suitable elements existing in Atlantic provinces' regulations and all other regions in the country.

Testing of these benchmarks would be done to ensure that each first nation meets the requirements of benchmark regulations under Bill S-8, ensuring the availability of safe and reliable drinking water in each community and protecting the environment from wastewater effluent.

Four communities in Atlantic Canada, from each of the provinces, were selected as pilot communities for the proposed benchmark regulations. These pilot communities would determine whether first nations would meet the benchmark regulations, and if not, what type of resources would be required.

A third aspect of our work was a water authority. Our chiefs have also looked at developing a water authority entity to assist first nation communities in managing water and waste water. APC is currently working with the firm McInnes Cooper in Atlantic Canada to do further research to find out more.

Vital issues that will need to be addressed include the identification of required parties for the board of directors for such an organization; the organizational structure of the entity; the specific roles of a water authority; the responsibilities of each member; the financial arrangements that would result; a clear definition of the relationship with federal agencies; the defining of relationships with private companies or utilities, and the operating water and wastewater services; and the defining of the fundamental relationships between all communities and a water authority.

It is anticipated that a water authority structure will be owned and controlled by the first nations themselves. By having our first nations in control of this water authority, it would bring us closer to achieving greater independence and self-determination in terms of water and waste water.

We also wish to further develop the benchmark regulatory regime through our discussions with all of the provinces in Atlantic Canada to obtain their direct feedback regarding how they deal with such issues as implementing modifications to regulations, operator certification, emergency response plans, and drinking water safety plans.

It is also vital to gain feedback from the provinces regarding the proposed regime. Some of the questions we need answers to are: Are the proposed benchmark regulations too stringent, or not stringent enough? Are there any lessons learned from the provinces about items in the benchmark regulatory reform that will not work in practice?

Communication is possibly, I feel, the most critical component of the work we're doing on this file and what we've undertaken to date. Key messaging is important to ensure that the Atlantic chiefs and all our first nation member communities understand the innovative approaches that APC has undertaken to ensure the health and safety of all first nation people in regard to drinking water.

The necessary support of our chiefs and all our communities and people in the future on this issue is critical. APC has discussed the process, the benefits, funding, challenges, changes in liability; ultimately, however, there is still an overwhelming need to address this health and safety priority issue in our communities.

With the approval and mandate of chiefs and our communities, APC has taken a very proactive and innovative approach to ensuring a viable option for the health and well-being of all our member communities now and for future generations to come. As the issue of safe drinking water has been an ongoing issue for many years, with no clear answer on addressing the current state, a solution had to be found before a Walkerton-type of outbreak happens in any one of our communities. The health and safety of our first nation communities, people, and drinking water have been key drivers of our search for innovative options. The future investment in any innovative option must be fully discussed. As there has been a significant amount of work undertaken, it is timely to discuss this opportunity for a long-term funding commitment for potential solutions, which we, as first nations, want to clearly pave a way forward. First nations are currently the fastest-growing population, and it is our collective responsibility that we ensure long-term sustainability, ensuring our life-giving resource as well as the health and safety of future generations to come.

Again, our member chiefs support the concept of Bill S-8, but like many other first nations and organizations, there needs to be a long-term commitment—a very long-term commitment—of adequate financial resources and capacity to properly implement Bill S-8 and any proposed regulations.

We want to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss the work we're doing and the ongoing initiatives we are conducting.

Thank you very much.

[Chief Dean Vicaire, Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat]

Thank you.

[Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq]

Good morning everyone. My name is Dean Vicaire and I am Chief of the Listuguj community.

Good morning, honourable members.

I would like to thank you for giving the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs this opportunity to testify before you.

My name is Chief Dean Vicaire, and I am the co-chair of the APC and the chief of Listuguj Mi'kmaq First Nation. My fellow co-chair, Chief Deborah Robinson, the chief of Acadia First Nation, sends her regrets. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the Atlantic chiefs regarding Bill S-8. I am also here with our executive director, John Paul.

We are a research organization that analyzes and develops culturally relevant alternatives to federal policies that impact on the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Innu, and Passamaquoddy communities and peoples. The Atlantic chiefs have always had the position that all Atlantic first nation communities deserve healthy safe drinking water now and for future generations to come. APC has taken the steps to look at innovative ways of addressing the current situation for Atlantic first nation communities, which Mr. Paul will expand on in more detail.

With the release of the Neegan Burnside study in 2010 that identified issues and concerns with first nation systems, and more recently Dr. Graham Gagnon's continued work based on the Neegan Burnside study, the true complexity of the situation in first nations communities became apparent. With no regulations in place to ensure the health and safety of first nations' drinking water, the current state of first nations' systems has escalated the issue even further. Regulations give requirements to determine how a system must function and what needs to be done to provide healthy and safe drinking water. Without proper oversight of any protocols or regulations, no one can really say if they are meeting any standard.

The APC chiefs also have other concerns about the legislation, such as the lack of resources to properly develop, test, and implement any proposed regulations, as well as the lack of resources for capacity not only for operators, but also for the maintenance of these systems.

The APC chiefs have taken steps to find innovative ways to address water and wastewater issues in first nation communities. In 2006, the APC presented to the independent Expert Panel for Safe Drinking Water for First Nations. The panel provided recommendations to INAC on water treatment and management for first nation communities. In 2009, APC contracted Dr. Graham Gagnon with the Centre for Water Resources Studies at Dalhousie University. He reviewed the 16 elements for safe water and developed a detailed document and approach for addressing these elements in first nation communities in Atlantic Canada.

In 2012, APC, with the support of Dr. Gagnon, conducted a regulatory review of the Atlantic provinces' current water and wastewater regulations. From that review, Dr. Gagnon developed a draft of regional benchmark regulations to give the APC chiefs an idea of what these benchmark regulations would look like and to identify the issues. As part of an innovative approach to addressing water issues, APC is also exploring the feasibility of a regional first nation water authority.

APC has undertaken three valuable research projects to strengthen the case for further resources and capacity for Atlantic first nations' water and wastewater systems. Mr. Paul will now expand on those studies.

I'd like to thank each and every one of you for listening.

[Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq]

Thank you.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

My question is very simple. What in Bill S-8 concerns you that the federal government will be authorized to enter into an agreement with the provincial government that will ultimately bind you? I'm looking for it in Bill S-8 and I just don't see it. I'm not saying it's not there, but I'm trying to find the basis for your concern.

I ask because I can't find it. Maybe we can come back to that after the meeting is over.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

And my friend Ms. Ambler, I think, referred to the letter, where the minister indicated unequivocally that Bill S-8 would not affect the municipality's ability to choose to pursue or not pursue municipal agreements with first nations.

You indicated in one of your answers that you're concerned about liability and you're concerned about off-loading. In your own brief you indicate in concern number two that the transfer of responsibilities is unknown. You, or whoever wrote this, states that Bill S-8 does not explicitly download duties and responsibilities onto local governments.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

So it won't be affected by Bill S-8.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Sure. That I think can take place, too, after the legislation is passed as well.

Also, in Minister Duncan's letter, a little further back in February, he did specifically say that “Bill S-8 will not affect municipalities’ ability to choose to pursue or not to pursue municipal service agreements with First Nations. As well, S-8 will not delegate powers or costs to provinces or municipalities with respect to First Nations drinking water — jurisdiction will remain with the federal government.”

In the spirit of alleviating your concerns, did that help as well? I know that both you and Mr. MacIsaac talked about financial and legal liabilities, but municipalities can choose or not choose to enter into a service agreement and include these issues in it. So I guess I just....

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge, Mayor Daykin, the essential role that you play, as underscored when you were speaking to Mr. Bevington. I understand that Minister Valcourt assured the municipalities that you will have a strong role to play should Bill S-8 become law. It's heartening that you're working with FCM and that you're representing their views as well as the views of Metro Vancouver.

I noticed in your position paper that there are a number of open-ended questions and concerns. Words like “unknown” and “unclear” require clarification. Would you agree that a regulatory framework is what's needed? Are you relieved, and are some of your concerns assuaged by the fact that Minister Valcourt has said the department really wants your input afterwards in the development of the regulations?

[Gary MacIsaac, Executive Director, Union of British Columbia Municipalities]

Thank you, Mayor Daykin.

Good morning, Chair, vice-chairs, and committee members.

I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before you this morning. My name is Gary MacIsaac. I'm the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, or UBCM. Metro Vancouver is an active UBCM member and, as you just heard, a provider of regional services, including drinking water and wastewater treatment. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee to speak in support of Metro Vancouver's position and concerns on Bill S-8, and I hope to provide additional provincial context on this matter.

The First Nations Relations Committee members, unfortunately, could not make the trip due to prior community commitments, and they send their regrets.

UBCM is a member-driven organization, with 100% local government membership in British Columbia. In addition to its 188 local government members, UBCM also represents six self-governing first nations members. UBCM's First Nations Relations Committee oversees all organizational policy development work related to first nations issues, including treaty negotiations, negotiations outside the treaty process, and governance reform. The committee's other key role is to focus on relationship-building between first nations and local governments through best practices and other initiatives.

With that brief overview, I would like to turn to Bill S-8. First and foremost, I acknowledge the real and substantial need for development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards, and the disposal of waste water in first nation communities. Access to clean drinking water is a basic need that must be provided as expeditiously as possible.

But as Mayor Daykin outlined, this bill has the potential to impact local government operations extensively, not only in the Metro Vancouver region, but across British Columbia and the nation. Yet it would appear that local government consultation was not sought in the development of this legislation. Early, meaningful consultation with local government not only allows potentially impacted local governments to raise concerns around issues such as service agreement and regulatory considerations, legislative and jurisdictional uncertainties, and potential financial and capacity implications, but it also allows for a mutually beneficial identification of issues at an early stage in the process. Local governments do not aim to obstruct the provision of necessary services; welcoming early and ongoing local government participation provides an appropriate forum for discussion and concern resolution.

The established role of local governments in aboriginal affairs has been recognized in agreements between UBCM and senior levels of government. This includes a memorandum of understanding with the Province of British Columbia on local government participation in the new relationship with first nations, which was renewed in 2012. Under this agreement, local government representatives serve as respected advisers to the province in treaty negotiations that affect their interests, and the province is committed to initiating contact with a local government when the outcome of negotiations will affect the local government's jurisdiction, operations, or provision of services. As a result of the 2005 new relationship vision document, this MOU was expanded to include consultation and information exchange with local governments on other agreements outside the B.C. treaty process, and on matters of mutual interest, including those that will have a significant impact on local government jurisdiction.

A MOU on communication and information-sharing between UBCM and the former INAC was renewed four times, and most recently in 2007—with the former INAC, now AANDC, indicating its interest in renewing the agreement in 2009. This agreement set out to improve communication and strengthen working relationships between INAC and UBCM, building on issues of common interest. In our view, this goal is critical not only to the local governments that provide on-the-ground services to first nations, but it also benefits senior government in the successful implementation of legislative initiatives.

With the importance of local government consultation in mind, Minister Valcourt's recent response to UBCM's letter expressing concerns about Bill S-8 was quite heartening. In it, Minister Valcourt indicated that Bill S-8 is an enabling bill that, if passed, would allow the Government of Canada to work with first nations and other stakeholders to develop regulations on a region-by-region basis, and that local governments are welcome to participate in the process, where appropriate. We appreciate the assurance that local government input will be sought, and look forward to participating accordingly.

At the core of concerns around Bill S-8 are broader concerns around local government exposure to liability as a result of the existing regulatory gap. As you know, reserve lands are exclusively federal lands and jurisdiction, outside of local government regulatory and taxation authority. Yet reserve lands are included within local government boundaries. There is an inability for local governments to regulate utility services on reserve lands, and without effective regulatory tools, local governments are exposed to financial, environmental, and public health liability if a problem arises with the local government service provided to those lands.

As Mayor Daykin previously outlined, these concerns relate to the potential conferring of service provision provided for under subclause 5(1) of Bill S-8 and to other service agreements that local governments develop in good faith with first nations. There's a real and pressing need for provincial and federal governments in collaboration with local government and first nations to develop effective legislative tools to reduce local government exposure to financial, environmental, and public health liability.

In addressing the concerns raised today by Metro Vancouver, there is also an opportunity to examine underlying regulatory issues more thoroughly.

I appreciate your time today, and we look forward to participating in the development of regulations and implementation plan pursuant to Bill S-8 as appropriate. We hope that today's presentation has aided in opening communications regarding Bill S-8 as well as ongoing and future matters of mutual concern. Both Mayor Daykin and I welcome your questions.

[Ernie Daykin, Director and Chair, Aboriginal Relations Committee, Metro Vancouver]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee members, we appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

My name is Ernie Daykin. I'm the mayor of the District of Maple Ridge in British Columbia. I'm also a director on the Metro Vancouver board and chair of the Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee.

As you mentioned, Mr. MacIsaac is with us from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and Mr. Ralph Hildebrand, general manager of corporate services and corporate counsel and manager of Vancouver's Aboriginal Relations Committee.

At the local government level we fully recognize and support the need for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to have access to clean, safe drinking water, and the proper disposal of waste water.

We're here today to present a local government perspective on Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, and represent some issues that are common to local governments not only in Metro Vancouver and British Columbia, but, we believe, across the country. In this regard I want to acknowledge the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which supports Metro Vancouver's views on Bill S-8. FCM's comments are reflected in some of the statements that are made in this presentation to the standing committee.

For everyone's benefit, I'll give an overview of Metro Vancouver. It's a federation of 24 local authorities, including one unincorporated area and one treaty first nation, the Tsawwassen First Nation. Tsawwassen First Nation reached the first modern urban treaty with the governments of Canada and British Columbia in 2009, under the B.C. treaty process.

Metro Vancouver works well together and collaboratively as we deliver plans and regional services, including drinking water, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management. Metro Vancouver also regulates air quality, plans for urban growth, manages a regional parks system, and provides affordable housing for our residents.

Metro Vancouver's population is currently 2.3 million, and over 50% of B.C.'s population live within the Metro Vancouver area. It's also home to 52,000 aboriginals, according to the 2011 census.

As I mentioned, I'm the chair of the Aboriginal Relations Committee, which is a standing committee of the Metro Vancouver board. It's been established to provide advice on treaty negotiations and aboriginal relations within Metro Vancouver to the board and to individual municipalities.

A key part of the committee's scope of work is strengthening relationships with first nations. We are participating actively in two tables with Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh as part of the provincial negotiation team's monitoring of emerging aboriginal treaty and non-treaty related issues, and assessing their impact on regional and municipal governments.

The relationship building and day-to-day interaction between municipalities and first nations that's taking place in our urban setting presents a number of challenges that we feel are unique, including higher population densities, competing private interests, unique land use considerations, rapidly growing servicing needs, and limited available crown land for treaty settlements.

Faced with these complex realities, Metro Vancouver has committed to building effective, positive working relationships with our first nations. This will ensure alignment and achievement of our common interests.

The regional district has been successful in communicating regional interests on a number of emerging policies and legislation that have been developed by the senior levels of government, and ensuring its continued involvement in the B.C. treaty process.

With respect to Bill S-8, Metro Vancouver has been concerned about the proposed legislation and its potential impact and implications for local governments since it passed first reading in the House of Commons in June 2012. Metro Vancouver has significant concerns about how Bill S-8 will affect its delivery of services in the Metro Vancouver area.

In response to Metro Vancouver's invitation in October 2012, staff representatives from the Vancouver offices of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada attended an Aboriginal Relations Committee meeting and made a presentation on Bill S-8. The federal representatives outlined a legislative framework for managing drinking water and waste water on first nations lands, and encouraged Metro Vancouver to submit its input into the parliamentary process by appearing before your committee.

Given the commitment on the part of the federal government—as expressed by the federal delegations—to consider and address local concerns as providers of water services to local communities, including first nations, we're pleased to be here today and provide you with our perspective.

To clearly formulate our interests and concerns with respect to Bill S-8, Metro Vancouver drafted a position paper on that bill, the safe drinking water for first nations act. That was drafted and presented to the board in November 2012. Based on the interest articulated and the issues identified in the position paper, local governments believe that it is at the community level that the effectiveness of this bill will be tested—including funding, improvements, and the need to execute and sign servicing agreements.

As such, the Metro Vancouver position paper identifies the following issues with respect to Bill S-8. One of the primary concerns expressed in the position paper is the transfer of responsibilities. From our interpretation of Bill S-8, an obligation to provide utility services and enforcement regulations could be imposed upon local governments if the federal government and respective provincial governments enter into an agreement under which the provincial governments are obliged to compel local governments to provide water and wastewater treatment services to first nation communities. Provincial governments may create or amend legislation to impose duties and responsibilities on local government as provincial bodies established by a provincial act.

Local governments do not want to be put in this position. There's a long history in B.C. of reaching agreements for services between local governments and first nations, as evidenced by the 550 servicing agreements between local governments and nearly 200 first nations.

Level of service is another concern. It's not clear whether Bill S-8 and the regulations passed pursuant to Bill S-8 will impose new requirements on local governments, and whether a regional authority such as Metro Vancouver will be required to provide water services to all municipalities to meet the obligations imposed, or whether Metro Vancouver will be required to increase its level of service to accommodate all growth and development within first nation lands.

Local governments in Metro Vancouver are compelled to comply with a regional growth plan. The projections for population growth and development are coordinated within the planning and development of regional services, such for the supply of drinking water and disposal of waste water. The imposition of requirements to provide drinking water and wastewater services to first nation lands that are developed outside of our regional planning principles could create, or will create, an imbalance between water and sewage plans and the regional growth plan.

Another concern that was expressed is bylaw regulation and enforcement. It is our understanding that Bill S-8 would permit local governments to apply their bylaws and regulations to first nations' lands to enforce and regulate the use of water and wastewater services to first nation communities. However it is not clear how the federal government will facilitate the enforcement of local government bylaws on reserve lands regarding the provision of utilities and other services to first nations. This includes first nation lands that are subject to future applications for additions to reserves.

Another closely related concern is regulatory authority. Bill S-8 is not clear on how the federal government proposes to protect local governments regarding environmental and public health liabilities related to servicing agreements for first nation lands when local governments have no regulatory authority over reserve lands and Indian bands do not have natural persons powers to enter into contractual agreements with local governments.

The financial liabilities are another concern that have been highlighted in the position paper. Regulating drinking water on Indian reserves would have significant capacity and resource related implications for local governments. It is not immediately clear how Bill S-8 will protect local governments that provide utility services to first nations against financial liabilities when local governments do not have taxation authority over first nation lands that are serviced.

In addition to undefined financial liabilities, there are also undefined legal liabilities presented by Bill S-8. For example, with section 13, the bill appears to remove the Government of Canada from legal liabilities associated with the regulations to be developed and implemented under the act.

In this regard, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has asked us to seek clarification from the standing committee as to what person or body the legal liability will reside with for the regulations developed and implemented under the act.

In addition, there is a concern with funding capacity. It is not clear whether the federal government and first nations across Canada have the proper funding capacity for the proposed infrastructure improvements on Indian reserves under Bill S-8.

The national assessment report, released in July 2011, estimates that over the next 10 years the combined projected capital and operating costs to meet the water and wastewater servicing needs of the communities of the 618 individual first nations across Canada will be approximately $4.7 billion, plus a projected operating and maintenance budget of $419 million annually.

The report further notes that in 2009 the water and/or wastewater systems of 153 of B.C.'s 203 first nations were considered to be high-risk systems. As indicated in the 2012 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, released by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, local governments across Canada also face major challenges while maintaining and managing decaying water and wastewater infrastructure to meet current public needs and minimum performance standards. The substantial infrastructure deficit is of great concern to municipal and local governments.

The upgrading and replacement of drinking water and wastewater systems will require considerable investments in many communities across Canada. Consequently, the capacity of local governments to expand the provision of water and wastewater systems and services may be limited. The infrastructure capacity gap for both local government and first nations must be closed to ensure that all Canadians have access to clean and safe drinking water.

We agree that the process needs increased funding to be successfully implemented. Bill S-8 outlines a legislative framework for managing drinking water and waste water on Indian reserves, but still lacks an adequate implementation plan, such as detail and substance required to improve water resource management on first nations' lands.

The issues I have just mentioned outline the difficulties that will be faced as a result of Bill S-8. At the local government level, when enacting plans, bylaws, and regulations that affect residents and businesses in the region, we seek input and consultation, and have other processes to ensure that we obtain a broad vision of ramifications of our actions and to ensure that we can practically address the concerns and avoid the law of unintended consequences.

Here, unfortunately, local government input in the enabling legislation is lacking. With Bill S-8, local government interests were not considered in the drafting of the legislation. Adequate communications and meaningful consultation with local governments are necessary, as local governments, we believe, will be impacted by Bill S-8.

In summary, I'd like to reiterate that local government recognizes and fully supports the need for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to have access to clean water and to wastewater disposal. To achieve this goal, senior governments must first make provisions for appropriate funding to first nation communities.

As local governments, we feel we have a unique perspective on this issue, its implementation, and potential implications. We remain hopeful that the regulations to be drafted for Bill S-8 will address the following requirements: reliable certification of water and wastewater treatment operators; binding and consistent water standards; clear oversight and reporting responsibilities; clear delineation of the roles of health, environment, and water officials, including first nations officials and their governments; clear and comprehensive monitoring and testing of drinking water; clear delineation of responsibility for responding to adverse events; opportunities for public involvement, disclosure, and transparency; opportunities for receiving expert third-party advice; available resources and funding mechanisms; and proper capital and infrastructure planning over time.

The tasks at hand are very large and challenging for any level of government, including first nations; therefore, all parties need to work together. There are significant investments that the federal government and first nations have made on this issue.

I think it's important to note that at the local government level we have also made significant investments. That needs to be acknowledged. Local governments request some clarity on cost recovery and the liability issues identified earlier, and which appear in Metro Vancouver's position paper.

Bill S-8 has potential implications for local governments. Given these issues identified, local government seeks a commitment from the federal government that Bill S-8 will be amended in consultation with local government and first nations.

Further, local government would like acknowledgement from the Government of Canada that local governments will not be affected by Bill S-8, and further, a commitment from the Government of Canada that local governments will be kept apprised and engaged in the process of developing the regulations for Bill S-8.

That concludes my remarks.

Thank you.

I'm going to pass it off to Mr. MacIsaac.

[Prof. Graham Gagnon]

I'm not aware of any. Through Bill S-8, I'm not aware of any.

[Dr. Steve Hrudey]

Well, that's what I'm pointing to: the simple addition of a preamble that focuses on the water safety plan approach. And then amongst the regulatory options that are outlined—because it is broadly enabling—I point out that this broad framework should be reflected throughout any options that are adopted.

That, I think, would be true to what the expert panel heard and wrote in our report. We were afraid of simply imposing a detailed regulatory structure with “meet these numbers or go to jail” and nothing else. Well, Bill S-8 isn't that, but the criticism is.

What else is it? It could be effective in the sense that it enables a whole bunch of things to happen, but it doesn't have the guiding principles, and that's what I'm advocating.

[Dr. Steve Hrudey]

I'll respond briefly in terms of the expert panel's expectations in 2006. I think we recognized in those nine meetings across Canada, and in the 100-plus submissions, that this was not a homogeneous problem. There's a lot of diversity among first nations in Canada, a lot of different views. The challenge in coming up with federal legislation on this topic is, how do you accommodate all of that diversity?

The way I see Bill S-8 is that, essentially, it's only enabling legislation. The test would be in how it's implemented.

I think it is fair criticism that there are no financial obligations associated with Bill S-8. From my point of view—I'm not speaking for the panel here—I would like to see commitment to the operational training part. From all the experience I've had, my view is that's the most critical element.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

It still leaves the communities in a position where they don't have trained operators on the ground.

I want to move on quickly here because I only have seven minutes, including your answers.

In the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development from 2005, there was an indication that the success of a first nation water management strategy depends on INAC’s and Health Canada’s addressing the management weaknesses. There were a whole bunch of management weaknesses.

Mr. Gagnon once again pointed out that Bill S-8 clarifies roles and responsibilities, but we've just recently had the case of Kashechewan, where the community recommended there be storm sewers and backflow limiter valves for each house after the flood of 2008, and the government refused. The storm sewers would have helped contain the flash flood. Instead, the sewage lifts were quickly overrun. There was no way of stopping the backup of raw sewage into the homes, and now 38 people are homeless.

This kind of situation is not unusual in first nation communities, and the community is well aware of it, but we’ve got governments…. This is not a partisan remark. It's not only this government but decades of governments that have not responded to community needs. It's the community that bears the direct brunt of this.

Do you think Bill S-8 will clean up situations like this?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hrudey and Mr. Gagnon.

I don't think anybody sitting around this table would disagree that first nation communities should have access to safe drinking water.

Part of what we've heard, either through testimony here or through written correspondence, is that there are a number of concerns about whether Bill S-8 will deliver safe drinking water. Part of the concern raised is the fact that a regulatory process will be developed that is not clear. Although the language in the proposed act says “working with first nations”, it's not clear that actual regulatory processes will actually be developed in full partnership with first nations. We've seen a long history of that not happening, so that's concern number one.

Concern number two, which you have both spoken to in one way or another, is resources, whether those be capital infrastructure costs or the ongoing operations and maintenance costs and training costs.

The third issue that's been identified—and Mr. Gagnon did address this somewhat—is around where the liability will rest and whether chiefs and councils will actually have the capacity to own that liability. Then there are the issues around operational gaps.

I quickly want to touch on a couple of points. In the report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, you indicated that the federal government must close the gap. But there were some concerns about putting in a regulatory regime, because creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management, and governance.

I think you spoke to that, Mr. Hrudey. Is that correct?

[Dr. Steve Hrudey, Former Panel Member, Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair and standing committee members, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to give evidence concerning safe drinking water for first nations in Canada.

I have previously testified with Grand Chief Stan Louttit to the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on March 1, 2011, and with Dr. Harry Swain, on May 15, 2007, concerning our findings in the 2006 Expert Panel on the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations report.

Our report speaks for itself. I don't need to repeat the details of the report here today. My views have not changed. I choose to focus my evidence today on my scientific and professional judgment, based on our research about what makes drinking water unsafe, to allow for understanding of what must be done to keep it safe.

This evidence is conditioned by practical experiences, such as serving Justice Dennis O'Connor on the Research Advisory Panel to the Walkerton inquiry and considering submissions from over 100 parties at hearings held at nine locations across Canada in 2006 while preparing our expert panel report. I have also included a bio at the end of my written submission that covers my other experiences.

I will focus my evidence before you on two matters: what is safe drinking water and how can it be assured, and the vital importance of operational competence in assuring safe drinking water.

Regarding the first matter, Bill S-8 is titled An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, but safe drinking water is not defined in Bill S-8, nor is it found in the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act or the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act. This should be a clue for parliamentarians about a major challenge regarding this topic.

Although it is clearly central to the purpose of Bill S-8, legislators elsewhere provide no assistance in defining safe drinking water. The problem is that “safe” as applied to drinking water is not a simple yes or no, black or white, determination. The drinking water at Walkerton, that killed 7 people and made over 2,000 ill, was clearly unsafe. It was black, not white. Most of the conditions that allowed that failure had been in place for almost 22 years before May 2000, when disaster struck.

In hindsight, the Walkerton drinking water supply was unsafe for 22 years because those responsible for assuring its safety failed to recognize and understand the risks to that supply. If they had recognized and understood the risks, and taken some relatively simple measures in response, the Walkerton disaster need not have happened.

Yet, those measures cannot have assured zero risk of drinking water contamination. Rather, safe drinking water must be assured by achieving negligible risk of consumers becoming ill, and by negligible I mean risks too small to worry about or to justify changing personal behaviour. Negligible risk will not be absolutely pure white on the inherently grey scale of safety, but negligible risk is close enough to white for all practical purposes.

While drinking water quality criteria, as captured by tables of water quality criteria numbers, provide an essential reference, such numbers, legislated or otherwise, cannot and do not assure safe drinking water. If those responsible for Walkerton's drinking water had simply satisfied the very limited guidance that was in place for treating Walkerton's water, that tragedy could have been averted. This disaster arose from a failure to do what needed to be done operationally, not from a lack of stringency of water quality criteria.

So how is negligible risk for drinking water achieved? I would suggest four steps: first, by recognizing and understanding what are the threats to a drinking water system; second, by understanding what are the capabilities and limitations of the treatment and monitoring processes available or that drinking water; third, by assuring that the treatment system operates to its capabilities for dealing with threats at all times; and fourth, by assuring that treated water is delivered to consumers without being contaminated during distribution.

These elements are key features of a “know your own system” approach to assuring safe drinking water that has become international best practice since first being proposed in 2004, almost simultaneous by the World Health Organization and the Australian drinking water guidelines. This approach calls for every water system to develop its own water safety plan.

In Canada, some provinces have addressed many elements of this approach. Ontario requires an operational plan and satisfying the quality management standard, but I find the Ontario approach to be too onerous for the smaller systems that invariably face the greatest risk. So far, only Alberta has made adoption of drinking water safety plans mandatory, and its program was intentionally designed to be practical and effective for small systems. Because drinking water systems for Canada's first nations are essentially all small systems, and many also face additional challenges of being remote, the drinking water safety plan approach is inherently the best available option for assuring that drinking water does not become unsafe.

Bill S-8 could, in one modestly bold step, reflect international best practice by making an absolute commitment to addressing a drinking water safety plan approach as its guiding principle.

The second issue in terms of the vital role of operational competence in assuring safe drinking water is that drinking water safety plans cannot assure safe drinking water unless those who are operating the plant possess the necessary operational competence—the training, knowledge, public health awareness, commitment, and functional capacity. The smaller and more remote the entity charged with providing drinking water, the more challenging it becomes to assure competence.

Consider the following image to illustrate my point about competence. Would you be comfortable as a passenger travelling in a plane flown by a pilot being paid minimal wages with minimal training and limited technical support? I wouldn't. Yet in many small communities in Canada, including first nations, we place responsibility for delivering safe drinking water on personnel who are often under-trained, mostly underpaid and generally under-supported for the enormous public health responsibility they must discharge. A serious operational mistake can make an entire community ill.

Evidence that we heard during our hearings in 2006 confirms my belief that even if physical treatment facilities are less than optimal, a well-trained, responsible operator will be able to protect the safety of a community much better than an inadequately trained operator, even if equipped with the best possible treatment facilities when the system is challenged. Providing safe drinking water is a knowledge-intensive undertaking, and must have a support system that equips and supports operators in taking on that challenge.

So I have to ask, how difficult is to recognize where the real problems lie? Canada has made major investments in upgrading water treatment facilities for first nations, with some excellent improvements to show for that investment. Yet to date, the emphasis has been on funding facilities without sufficiently increased emphasis on tackling the more challenging task of training and supporting competent, responsible operators for every facility.

Given the high unemployment that exists in many remote first nation reserves, an emphasis on creating skilled employment should be an obvious priority, even without the vital role that competent operators play in assuring safe drinking water. Above all else, our focus must be on assuring operational competence.

Small and isolated communities in Canada universally face challenges in achieving the necessary level of competent operations, but some communities have been successful in investing in their operators. Several first nation communities have benefited from circuit rider programs that provide regional support for isolated operators, but these programs are too often over-subscribed and underfunded.

Lack of leadership is a major problem for assuring safe drinking water in Canada. Bill S-8 provides a unique opportunity to fill this leadership void with benefits for Canadians in all small communities, not only first nations. After all, who can credibly disagree with the merits of managing our drinking water to the international best practice of adopting a drinking water safety plan and a know your own system approach?

Thank you.

[Prof. Graham Gagnon, Director, Dalhousie University, Centre for Water Resources Studies]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for providing me an opportunity to address clean drinking water in first nation communities in Atlantic Canada, and the potential impacts of Bill S-8.

The Centre for Water Resources Studies at Dalhousie University was established in 1981 to address water issues facing Atlantic Canada through applied research. The objective of our centre is to address real challenges faced by water communities and to provide a platform for the development and appropriate application of water technology, water quality analysis, and advancement.

As director of this centre, I'm also a professor and NSERC chair in water quality treatment in the Faculty of Engineering.

Over the past five years, the centre has worked with organizations such as Alberta Environment, New Brunswick Department of Health, Nova Scotia Department of Environment, and the Government of Nunavut, to evaluate and develop risk-based water and wastewater strategies.

Through the research chair program I've also had to opportunity to work with water utilities, engineering consulting firms, and technology firms in Atlantic Canada and beyond to investigate and provide solutions to emerging water quality challenges.

Since 2009, our centre has worked in partnership with the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs on advancing knowledge in clean water and developing a path forward for safe drinking water and wastewater systems in first nation communities.

The APC recognizes the challenges of their current water practices. The APC sees opportunities for improving health and safety in first nation communities. One would be through the passing of Bill S-8.

Bill S-8 defines lines of responsibilities between the owner and the regulator of water assets, which was seen as a critical step forward in providing safe water in the report on the Walkerton inquiry, written by Justice O'Connor in 2002.

The state of drinking water and waste water in first nation communities is a recognized challenge in Canada.

In 2006, an independent expert panel for safe drinking water for first nations provided recommendations to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada on water treatment and management strategies for first nation communities. The expert panel identified 16 elements of a proposed regulatory system, and suggested that a national-level first nations water commission take on the roles of regulation, enforcement, and accountability.

Since that time, national studies have been conducted by several independent organizations. Notably, Neegan Burnside conducted a system assessment report of water and wastewater treatment, and the related costs and risks in first nation communities.

Within the Atlantic region, the centre, in partnership with the APC, has conducted several research projects related to water and wastewater systems in first nation communities. These projects fall under the umbrella of a clean water initiative for first nation communities. The overall purpose of this clean water initiative is to provide public health and safety for first nation communities in Atlantic Canada.

The main activities undertaken by the centre have included a regulatory assessment and regulatory benchmark development for the Atlantic region, a water asset analysis and cost assessment for the Atlantic region, and the development of a framework for a first nations regional water authority.

Mr. Chair, our centre has developed a regulatory benchmark for first nation water and wastewater operations in Atlantic Canada. These were based on the 16 elements defined by the expert panel. They're also benchmarked against the regulations from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

These regulatory benchmarks have been reviewed by AANDC and have been reviewed by several key experts in the water field.

To test the implementation of these regulatory benchmarks, members from our centre conducted pilot trials with four first nation communities in Atlantic Canada. The results of the pilot trials suggest that there is potential for a high level of compliance with drinking water and wastewater quality. However, there are significant operational gaps identified that require investment of both human and financial resources to meet the standard on a day-to-day basis.

Going forward, the benchmarks offer an opportunity to develop a regulatory structure in the Atlantic region. It's been noted that the enforcement and compliance aspects of this regulatory structure would require funding resources and a full review with various first nation stakeholders, going forward.

Mr. Chair, the centre has also provided a peer review of the data presented in the 2011 national engineering assessment, conducted by Neegan Burnside. The centre specifically focused our efforts on first nation communities in the Atlantic region. The centre's review showed that only 50% of the systems had an operator with adequate certification, only 11 systems also had a source water protection plan, and 15% had groundwater assessment plans. These source water protection plans and ground water assessment plans are viewed as a critical step for water security, which has been outlined in the report of the Walkerton inquiry.

Within the context of waste water, the national engineering assessment revealed that a mere 35% of the wastewater systems in Atlantic Canada met the 1976 federal guidelines for wastewater quality. This was viewed as significant, as the wastewater system effluent regulations were promulgated in 2012, and therefore the 2012 wastewater regulations specify significant changes for first nations systems.

Based on a review of the national engineering assessment data and the pilot trials, it is apparent that there is a gap between the current practice and future regulation for water and wastewater systems.

We have evaluated the economic gap in regulation and engineering practice by working with an engineering firm called CBCL Limited. CBCL is an engineering firm with over 60 years of design experience in Atlantic Canada. They were asked to conduct a drinking water and wastewater asset assessment of first nation communities. The asset assessment developed class C and class D cost estimates for water treatment, water distribution, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment. The cost estimates focused on the gap between the current state of conditions and those proposed in the regulatory benchmarks.

The asset assessment consisted of individual community visits, evaluation of background materials and documentation, and using costing models for regional water systems of similar service size. A summary of all first nation communities in Atlantic Canada was prepared along with detailed individual reports for each participating community.

It was estimated that a complete replacement of all existing water and wastewater infrastructure would total approximately $250 million in the Atlantic region, whereas the estimate to bring systems into compliance with the proposed regulatory benchmarks would cost, at the low end, $70 million, and at the high end, $100 million. Operation and maintenance costs were estimated to be approximately $7 million per year among the participating communities in the Atlantic region.

Finally, our centre has a history of working with the water industry, and we have recommended that a regional first nations water authority be established. To its credit, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs has recognized that addressing water challenges through a coordinated regional approach is required. Implementation of a first nations regional water authority would enable coordinated decision-making, maximize efficiencies of resource allocation, and establish a professionally based organization that would be in the best position to oversee activities related to drinking water and wastewater disposal. This would, on a day-to-day basis, transfer liability away from chiefs and councils, and pass it to a technical group. Examples of similar organizations include water utilities, power companies, and post-secondary educational institutions in Canada.

The APC is evaluating options for a water authority structure. Potential structures include a water authority as a crown agency, as a private company, or as a corporation through a federal private act. In partnership with McInnes Cooper, a law firm based in Atlantic Canada, our team evaluated all three options and determined that incorporation through a private act would be the most desirable option for the proposed water authority. Incorporation through a private act would enable the water authority to maintain a greater level of autonomy and transparency, and most important, a defined scope of activity and responsibility.

The proposed water authority structure is consistent with the 2006 “Report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations”. It's also consistent with the spirit of Bill S-8, in that a regional entity would be a body upon which the power to own and operate drinking water and wastewater systems in the Atlantic region could be conferred.

In conclusion, the Centre for Water Resources Studies has had the privilege to work with the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs to identify safe drinking water and wastewater disposal practices for first nation communities in Atlantic Canada. Through this partnership, the team has worked on three main activities: a regulatory benchmark framework, a water asset analysis, and the development of a framework for a regional first nations water authority. There is a significant opportunity to improve health and wellness for first nation communities. The provision of safe drinking water and wastewater disposal has been a significant barrier for many communities in Atlantic Canada.

Within the Atlantic region, the first nations chiefs have been highly supportive in developing innovative solutions to address water quality challenges in Atlantic Canada. The path forward proposed by the Centre for Water Resources Studies is therefore consistent with Bill S-8 and with the 2006 expert panel report. To that end, it is recognized that these activities will require resources in collaboration with the federal government. However, these resources will be used to provide sustainable communities and a legacy of safe drinking water for generations.

Thank you.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy about being here. However, I am here because we need to stand up to this government, which believes that Parliament exists only for its benefit and that it is just a place concerned with the government's problems and accountability.

It is almost as if a new party came into the House today, as we listen to the Conservative House leader speak. It certainly is not the party that moved prorogation and killed legislation time and again. This new Conservative Party is suddenly interested in not defeating legislation. It could not be the same Conservative Party that has shut down debate in the House of Commons more than any party in Canadian history. It could not be a member of the same party who was speaking here today, talking about opening up debate. The Conservatives have invented a new world for themselves that is fascinating.

I am reflecting on my friend from Langley, who sought to speak in this House on what they call an S. O. 31 statement, which happens just before question period. It is a statement that lasts for about a minute. Usually members of Parliament get up and make a statement about their ridings about some issue that is important to them. My friend from Langley, who sits in the Conservative Party, was a parliamentary secretary, I remember, for the Minister of the Environment, a chair, a well-respected member of Parliament, and a friend. He sought to stand up and speak to something he thought was important to his constituents.

It was the old Conservative Party that shut down that member of Parliament and every other one who tried to get up and speak, because this new Conservative Party talks about wanting people to speak in the House and wanting to have debate.

While it is refreshing to hear it, I do not believe it, and I do not think Canadians are going to believe that suddenly accountability and democracy have broken out within the Prime Minister's Office. It is the office of this particular Prime Minister who, rather than face any uncomfortable questions from the media or the official opposition members today, or for the rest of this week, has decided that going to South America to sit with other trading partners from other countries we already have established trade deals with to talk about trade deals that already exist is much more important than asking questions about the Senate.

It must be a new Conservative Party that suddenly has on its agenda a legislative directive that the members need to sit longer hours and work hard on something that might be quite topical today, something such as the reform of Canada's Senate, which has been long overdue and long called for by Canadians and New Democrats who said that the place was fundamentally broken. There is no accountability. Unelected and under investigation is the new Senate.

I remember the old Reform Party. You probably do as well, Mr. Speaker. It came in riding from the west, from my part of the world.

I see a member across the way, who was one of the founding members of the Reform Party, calling it a beautiful thing. While I disagreed fundamentally with many of its positions, certainly its social positions, there was something on which I could see some common ground. That was to make Parliament more accountable and to reform the Senate.

The current government has now been in power almost seven long years. Is that right? The time goes slowly. In those six or seven years, the Prime Minister made a promise as one of his fundamental commitments to Canadians. Commitments should be treated sacredly, I believe.

We all get up at elections. We have party platforms and promises we make to Canadians. If we win, that platform and those promises become our agenda. That is what we would seek to do in office. It is simple. One of his promises, one of his agendas, one of his reforms was on the Senate. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they would see those Liberal senators down there taking their money, not really representing anybody, going on trips and maybe even defrauding taxpayers. Who knows? The Reform movement came in and said it was wrong and anti-democratic.

For a party that decided to put “democratic” right in the middle of our name, we take these questions seriously. We feel that it is accountability to the people we on the orange team represent. In a sense, we are watching this Prime Minister now play victim to what is going on in the Senate with senators he appointed exclusively and explicitly to raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now this same Prime Minister claims victimhood and wonders how this happened. How did his chief of staff, who sits to his immediate left every day and knows his deepest, darkest secrets, whom he put in charge of major trade files and negotiations with other countries, cut a $90,000 cheque to a senator he appointed? However, obviously, the Prime Minister's hands are clean, and he has nothing to say about this. He believes that his hands are so clean that he is not going to answer any questions about it. He is going to go to South America to be in trade talks with countries we already have trade deals with. That is the new Conservative Party, which is the old one, the same one that has forgotten its roots.

Dear Mr. Manning is still with us, so he is not spinning in his grave, but he is definitely spinning. He was asked recently whether the Conservatives have lost their principles. He said, no, they have maintained their priorities. It is an interesting dodge of a question. Mr. Speaker, you have been around politics a bit. You know when a question is put directly and someone answers it indirectly.

I find it incredible that we have before us a motion that continues to abuse Parliament. This motion is designed simply to restrict debate and demonstrate to members of the House of Commons that the only reason Parliament exists is so that the government can do what it wants.

I remember a comment made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. When we were debating a time allocation motion, he said that their intention was not to put an end to debate or to censure it, but just to control Parliament.

It is incredible that a minister is admitting that the Conservatives just want to control the Parliament of Canada. It also reflects the Conservatives' esprit de corps. They want to control everything, not just the opposition and Parliament, but their members, as well as the media and the public.

The current vision of the Prime Minister and the government leaves the public with no choice and no voice. It is all about the kind of country that the Prime Minister wants to build.

We see a government moving this extraordinary thing, which will see, big deal, members of Parliament sitting until midnight.

New Democrats have been known, sometimes to our detriment, to be willing to force the calendar to the very last minute and sit all night, such as when the government moved anti-worker legislation against a very profitable Canada Post, which, I might add, in a parenthetical way, then lost money.

After the lockout by Canada Post, the government imposed wage contracts on those workers that were less than what the company was willing to offer. Then it said that it needed to shut down Canada Post offices around the country, as Canada Post was losing money because of the lockout it allowed them to do. The logic is inherently twisted on that side.

Remember the omnibus debates and the voting we had. I remember my friend from the Green Party moving a certain number of amendments to the bill, which forced the House to sit all night and vote, hour after hour. I remember some of my friends from Surrey who stayed in their seats for 22 hours.

No one has ever accused New Democrats of not being willing to come to work and work on behalf of our constituents. We may do some things wrong. We may sometimes fall short in some areas, but hard work has not ever been one of those things.

There is such irony in hearing a Conservative House leader who, with his Prime Minister, has prorogued Parliament, shut it down, and killed their government's own legislation time and time again, say to the Speaker that the problem is that they cannot get their legislation through.

It had been there for 12 months. After eight months, they killed it themselves and prorogued the House.

One prorogation was quite notable. The government looked to be in a bit of trouble. It was in a minority position. The world was entering into a very deep recession. The Minister of Finance, who claims to be the best in the world, ignored the recession and introduced what the Conservatives called an austerity budget at the very moment when the rest of the world, realizing that the economy was coming to a virtual standstill, was introducing budgets that did the opposite.

The finance genius we have sitting in the chair said, “Never mind what the rest of the world thinks about what is going on in the global economy; we know that Canada is not going into recession”, even as we were in the midst of a recession. He introduced an austerity budget to cut back billions in job creation, in grants and in all the things the Conservatives take credit for, such as unemployment insurance for a bunch of Canadians who were just being thrown out of work.

The opposition said that it was not a very good budget and suggested that we vote against that budget. The government panicked and prorogued. Canadians got a civil lesson in how Parliament works. They had never heard the word “prorogation” before. Then we got to learn.

The Prime Minister had to go to the Governor General. He sat there for a number of hours, perhaps being lectured about how undemocratic it was, when facing a non-confidence vote, to head down the road to the Queen's representative to ask for permission to shut it all down before he was thrown out of office. He was more worried about his job that day than about Canadians. That is for sure.

That is a government that killed its legislation in order to save itself, and did it time and time again.

Here is the trend that we worry about with today's motion. For a government that has broken the record by shutting down debate more times than any government in Canadian history, it has refused 99.3% of all the amendments that the opposition has brought to its legislation.

Let us look at that for a moment. The way a bill is supposed to work is it comes into the House and gets debated. There is a pro and con and the real coming together or clash of ideas to improve the legislation because no one is perfect. The drafters of legislation do not get it right. They are sometimes hundreds of pages long and very complicated. The House is meant to debate that. Then we send it to committee and hear from experts, not just members of Parliament who are not often experts in these areas, but people who work in the field. They are the social workers, the financial experts, the crime experts and the police. We hear those suggestions and write amendments based on those ideas. That is the way this place is supposed to work.

However, the government is saying that in 99.3% of those cases those experts are wrong and the government is right. It will not change a period, a comma, not a word in any of the legislation. Then lo and behold, time and time again, the legislation is challenged in the courts successfully. The legislation does not fix the problems identified and costs Canada and Canadians billions.

We all remember well Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill that would allow the state to look in on the Internet searches and emails of Canadians without any warrant. The government decided in its vigour for its tough on crime agenda that it would pass a law that said that at any point, at any time, Canadians anywhere could have their BlackBerrys and iPhones tapped by the government, that web searches on home computers could be looked at by the government and the police. There is no country in the world, outside of Iran and North Korea, that would even consider doing this. The Conservative government thought it was a fantastic idea. In trying to argue the case, it said that if we were not into exposing our Internet searches and our emails then we must be in support of child pornography.

Has any more offensive or stupid an argument ever been made on the floor of the House of Commons? It is offensive to basic civil liberties and decency, to the role of members of Parliament trying to do our jobs and to the Canadians who said that they were not sure they wanted the government looking at their email?

I look at the member for Yukon right now. I do not know what he is searching and I do not want to know. It is his privacy to look on his computer and do as he sees fit. That is a civil liberty I am sure he defends as well, but not his government.

Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, was the flagship. The government rammed it all into one bill and said that it was such important legislation it would shut down debate on it too. Then whole sections of the bill were taken out. Why? It was because they were unconstitutional.

Now we know where that all comes from. Canadians actually pay for a service. Many members of Parliament may not know this, but when a government introduces a bill it goes to constitutional legal experts to determine if the new legislation goes against our constitution, our foundation as a country? If it does, it is a good idea to modify the law to ensure it does not get challenged in the courts, which costs upwards of $3 million to $5 million to taxpayers every time there is one of those challenges. The government did not check on Bill C-10. We know that because the people who work for the Government of Canada, who do this work, are no longer receiving references from the government.

The government is not even asking anymore. It is choosing ignorance. This is incredible. It is saying that it does not want to know whether the laws it writes are constitutional, whether the laws it writes as a government are for or against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is incredible. This is not a mistake. It is by intention. Therefore, we have these lawyers sitting in their offices, being paid every day, waiting for the government to refer the bills it introduces here to ensure they can survive a constitutional challenge. The government does not ask anymore.

Bill C-38, the first omnibus bill and Bill C-45, the second omnibus bill, were both challenged in the courts as unconstitutional. First nations are challenging it. I need to address this because the government House leader mentioned two bills that are being moved, so-called, on behalf of first nations. They are Bill S-2 and Bill S-8. One is matrimonial property rights. It sounds pretty innocuous. Most Canadians would say that matrimonial property rights for first nations women on reserve maybe protects their rights. Who is opposed to it? It is not just us in the opposition, but aboriginal women, every first nation women's group in the country. My friend across the way shakes his head, but I can show him the testimony that says the bill is no good for aboriginal women.

However, the Conservatives know better. With their shameful record on aboriginal rights and title in the country, suddenly they know better than aboriginal women, than first nations women. Bill S-8 is a bill to help first nations have clean drinking water because the record has been shameful.

Government after government has failed first nations communities. Thirty-five per cent of the people I represent in northern British Columbia are in first nations communities. The water conditions there are incredibly bad. We have to do something about it. There are fixes and there are ideas coming from those communities.

Instead the government moves the bill, handing all responsibility down to first nations in terms of cleaning up their own water mess, but none of the resources to do it. Are first nations supportive of it? No. Nor would any municipality or any province in Canada be supportive of legislation that rams down responsibility without any of the support, money or help to get that done.

Most of these first nations communities are living in abject poverty. Where does the government think they are going to get the money from? The government will not settle treaty with them in the west. First nations are having mining, oil and gas exploration and pipelines put everywhere and are receiving none of the royalties, none of the compensation and the government will not move treaty forward.

I was just in Gitxsan territory, speaking with the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en, talking about basic child services, kids who are being abused in their homes and setting up a program that the federal government said that we should enact 20 years ago to allow first nations more rights and responsibilities to rescue those kids and help them kids integrate back into their communities.

Who is not coming to the table? The Conservative government. This is the government that on Bill S-2 and Bill S-8 suddenly said that it had first nations rights and title and priorities at heart, when it did not.

The place can work. Members can sense a certain amount of frustration in my voice, because Parliament can work. It is actually designed to work. I love our system. It is so superior to many other systems I have studied around the world, that have consistent congressional gridlock on legislation and on budgets. We can make things happen here.

However, with the power that is afforded a majority government, which is a lot, comes a certain amount of responsibility to use the power wisely and not abuse it. Yet time and again we have seen the government House leader and other ministers get up and say that they are not looking to limit the debate; they just want to control it. They reject virtually 100% of all the amendments and all the changes and suggestions they hear at committee because they know better and they have the votes to push it forward.

It is at such a point that the control has extended deeply into the government's caucus. Some of the more socially conservative members of the Conservative caucus are no longer free to speak, or are only free to speak on certain things, in certain ways, if the Prime Minister's Office allows for it.

In a small program that we run in northern B.C., initiated a number of years ago, I hold a conference call with all the detachment commanders from all the RCMP outposts that exist in my riding. It is a very large riding facing a lot of tough, difficult situations with policing. Once every two or three months I get on the phone with 12 detachment commanders and we talk about what is going on. We talk about what is happening in crime, what the drug use is like, what legislation is moving through the House that will help or hinder these hard-working, hard-serving officers.

I am not allowed to have that conversation with these RCMP officers anymore. I am not supposed to talk to them. As a sitting member of Parliament, I am not supposed to go to them. A number of them have come to me because they are friends and we have known each other for years. They offer good, on-the-ground advice about what is happening.

They say that they are sorry, that they cannot talk to me. They tell me that I have to phone the Prime Minister's Office in order for them to talk to me about what is going on in Prince Rupert, or what is going on in Dease Lake or Bella Coola.

It is insane. This is wrong. Government officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who I have known for years and who I phone just for an update to see what is going on with our fish on the west coast, tell me that I am a member of Parliament from the opposition and that I need to phone the people in the Prime Minister's Office and that they will give me permission as to whether they can tell me what is going on in Canada's fishery.

This is not their government. This is not a Conservative government. This is Canada's government. We pay for these civil servants. We pay their salaries to do work on behalf of Canadians. Whether it is silencing scientists, shutting down access for members of Parliament to basic conversations, or shutting down debate in Parliament, the consistent voice from the government is that it will not be held to account.

This is bad. This is not just about the privilege all members of the House need to do their job. The government says there is some urgency, but there is not. There is no urgency when it comes to the government's mandate or agenda.

It is very strange for the government to say it is very open, when we see what is going on in the Senate.

We have senators like Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau. All current senators have potentially stolen money from Canadians. These are the same senators that the Prime Minister says are very good people. These are the same senators using money from the Canadian people to travel during an election and raise money for the Conservative Party. That is the new Conservative Party. I do not understand.

I remember the Reform Party of Canada and some reforms that Mr. Manning wanted to make. With the current party, it is the same story as with the Liberal Party and the Gomery commission and all the rest. I am both angry and sad.

The majority of Canadians did not vote for this government, which has a majority, but does not have the majority support of Canadians. Close to 60% of Canadians voted against this agenda, against this sort of arrogance. They voted not to have the kind of government that now uses brutal tactics, not against the New Democratic Party, but against Parliament.

Lastly, I think we need to have a referendum, which may not happen until the next election.

It bears some comment, not only with respect to the Senate scandal but even the motion today.

I watched the government House leader and the Prime Minister on television earlier. He actually allowed the media into his caucus room for a second, which was bizarre. The bully turns into the victim, that somehow this is put upon them, that they are somehow being victimized here.

What frustrates me is not just the work that we have to do as parliamentarians that is constantly thwarted by the government at committee stage, and my friend laughs, but how can it be possible that 99.3% of all amendments were rejected? The evidence is clear.

My friend can shake his head and laugh and treat this with disdain treat this with disdain or heckle out what seems to be a favourite tactic of some of my friends who cannot win the debate, but can simply sit in their seats and heckle, yell and try to put down a comment that hurts a little too much, that being that 99.3% of all amendments were rejected, that the witnesses were all wrong, that the government was always right and that the courts must be wrong too. Soon the Conservatives will call them activist courts like the Republicans do in the states. Members should watch for it because it is coming.

We believe this motion is fundamentally flawed in its abuse of this place and of all members. I do not speak just for the New Democrats or the folks down the way. I speak for the backbenchers who have been rubbing up against some of the limitations. What is sad about most of it and is most concerning is those who are not agitating against the Conservative government's control over its backbench and accepting it. I lament the most for those who are so comfortable reading the script from the Prime Minister's Office and repeating it like robots, feeling that is their work and whose expectations of what it is to be a member of Parliament are so diminished that they simply accept it, not those the media have called rebels who have stood up and stated that they want to have their own statement but the Prime Minister's Office has shut them down. They run under the blue banner, which is their choice.

I lament for those who seem so happy to get up and repeat the mindless dribble that is put to them by the Prime Minister's Office day after day. When they first ran for office, I wonder if they said that they wanted to be a member of Parliament to represent people and get to Parliament to speak with a strong voice of conviction on behalf of the people they represent and that in order to do they would read whatever was put in front of them by the Prime Minister's Office, written by a 24-year old intern who types out some sort of nonsense and makes up policies that the NDP does not have, making personal attacks on a regular basis as a substitute for honest and sincere debate? Was that really their expectation?

I wish I had some video evidence from some of those early debates because I know that is not what those members ran on. I know their nomination meetings did not look like that, nor did any of the debates they attended during the campaign. That is not what they said. They said that they would speak on behalf of their constituents, fight for them and still raise their voice, even if that meant it was contrary to what their government suggested.

I am sure that is what my friends across the way said. They are very nice people. I know a lot of these folks, as we have spent some time together. I know some of their inner thoughts about the way Parliament ought to be, and some of them lament it. However, it is the ones who do not who worry me. They are the ones who so comfortably slip into that straitjacket day after day. Maybe they just get used to it, but they are able to rationalize that there is some larger agenda that is more important than their having an independent and free voice.

They can keep yelling and you can allow them to if you wish, Mr. Speaker, but the truth often hurts, and the truth of the matter is that with a majority government, this member and his colleagues have chosen to vote for closure more than any government in Canadian history. With a majority, the Conservative government has refused the evidence, has refused the science time and time again, and that government is bad government.

The Conservative government appointed senators, and I am sure some fundraising went on for some of my friends. Maybe Ms. Wallin, Mr. Duffy or Mr. Brazeau came by and raised a few dollars, shook a few hands and got a few votes for my friends. Maybe there is a little bit of a tarnish on my colleagues, which is why they are calling out and why they are worried. It is because their base hates this. They hate the idea of entitlement and of an insider's game that goes on in Ottawa all the time, and that friends of the Prime Minister's Office get some sort of special treatment.

Talking about special treatment, how about a $90,000 personal cheque just cut off the back and handed over to somebody who may have defrauded taxpayers? Where is the Reform Party now? Where are the original Conservative intentions now? They are gone, bit by bit, eroded piece by piece. That is where it has gone, and it has all been subjugated to some idea that there is a better and bigger cause, that this grand scheme they are involved in somehow makes all of it justifiable.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what these guys would sound like if the roles were reversed? If it were a Liberal government with senators getting cheques from the Prime Minister's chief of staff or a New Democratic government acting the way the Conservatives act, could you imagine the hue and cry and the calls for resignations every second minute? They would be losing their minds.

Now the Conservatives play the victim, saying that these senators were put upon them, that they didn't know what they were doing, that it is terrible. They only have a majority, both here and there. The Prime Minister has appointed more senators than any Prime Minister in Canadian history. How many did he say he would appoint? None, but he had to appoint some, and then it had to be justified. These are small and slow slippages, and this motion is a continuation of that.

This motion says that Parliament matters less and that those Canadians who have grown cynical about the role of MPs are justified in their cynicism. We say that is wrong. How do we turn to the young voters coming up? How do we turn to people who come to us and say that they might want to run for office one day? How can we say that their voices will matter when the government moves motions like this time and time again, shutting down debate?

As my friend the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said, the Conservatives do not want to shut down debate; they just want to control it. Is this is how one entices people into a life of politics? Is this how one encourages young people to vote? Do we say, “Welcome to Parliament, where we are going to control debate and shut it down time and time again”? This is the Conservatives' call to action.

It is not a call to action, but a call to inaction. It is a call to cynicism. It is calling to people, “Do not look over here; nothing is happening here in government. Go on with your lives and other things that are more important and distracting.” The government is counting on people to have an attention deficit rather than realize that the decisions we make here in Parliament every day affect Canadians in every way.

If members of Parliament cannot do their work, as this motion suggests, and hold the government to account, it is bad government. It is bad government when it cannot find $3 billion that may be under a mattress or in a banana stand or wherever it happens to be, and when senators rip off taxpayers with no consequence whatsoever. We think the RCMP might have a role to play here.

What would happen if any of the Canadians in our gallery today or watching on TV defrauded the Canadian government of $500? They would get charged. However, if it is a Conservative senator, what happens? Oh, they just recuse themselves from caucus. Wow. They still get paid, they still have all of their privileges, but they cannot go to caucus meetings on Wednesday mornings.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that maybe that punishment is a little severe? I mean, having to recuse oneself from a two-hour meeting on Wednesday morning for defrauding taxpayers—boy, that seems pretty harsh.

Why the double standard? We used to call that the culture of entitlement. I remember a colleague of mine in this place, Ed Broadbent, asking a former Liberal minister who became head of the mint and was claiming packets of gum and coffee on his receipts, “Are you entitled to your entitlements, sir?” This person took a moment of authenticity and said, “Yes, I am entitled to my entitlements.”

The Conservatives railed at the Liberal entitlement, the culture of entitlement, the Gomery inquiry and all those terrible things that went down.

History repeats itself if one is not a student of history, and it seems that the Conservative Party has not looked at the history of this place or of other parliaments.

The fact of the matter is that debate in and of itself is not a bad thing. The exchange of ideas is not in and of itself a bad thing. Being wrong from time to time is not of itself a bad thing; learning happens in those moments, and the government needs to learn, because I can read off the list of the bills it had so fundamentally wrong that it had to withdraw them. The Conservatives had to say that they got it so badly wrong because they listened to none of the amendments that they have to fix it now, at the very last minute, or wait until it gets to the Senate and let the unaccountable, unelected and under investigation senators deal with it. That is no form of democracy worth defending, and the Conservatives know it. They know it better than most.

I will move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “Fridays” and replacing them with the following: “(b) when oral questions are to be taken up pursuant”—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

[Regena Crowchild]

We rejected Bill S-8. We're coming from a Tsuu T'ina perspective. As for Treaty 7 in total, at the time when it was first introduced, everybody said that they didn't have any problems with safe drinking water. We want safe drinking water. It was the manner that it was introduced into legislation that overruled and overrode our jurisdiction. It overrode the fiduciary obligations and fiscal responsibilities.

We take the position that we have complete jurisdiction over the water that's on our territories. As nations, we have never surrendered that. We expect Canada to start implementing the treaty according to its spirit and intent. One of our concerns is the water issue. The Province of Alberta, which has the regulatory regime or the allocation, is in direct conflict with the spirit and intent of Treaty 7. We want to address that and get it all sorted out. It appears it has always fallen on deaf ears and we haven't been able to address it properly. We certainly want safe drinking water, but we want it to be done appropriately.

[Vaughn Paul]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to the honourable members. Thank you for inviting our organization to make a presentation on this piece of legislation.

I'll give you a bit of background. I want to thank Regena for opening the comments from an Alberta perspective. I'm with the First Nations Alberta Technical Services Advisory Group, TSAG for short. It's a non-profit service entity governed by all first nations in Alberta through a chief steering committee appointed by the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs. TSAG provides technical services and training to first nations for housing, public works, community facilities, and environmental management, for more than 12 specialized programs.

Our organization has a particular focus and expertise in relation to water management at the local level in first nations communities. TSAG operates a circuit rider program which trains first nation water and waste water operators to deliver safe drinking water. In partnership with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada—the regional office and the folks here in Ottawa—TSAG has also worked to develop a community-driven source water protection plan with one Alberta first nation. It is the first of its kind. This guide will serve as a national template for source water protection planning on reserve to further build community capacity for water resources management. TSAG provides technical training and network opportunities for first nations staff working in lands and environmental departments.

Over the last year and a half, we have engaged in a pilot project with representatives of AANDC. We've installed remote water monitoring devices in every first nation water treatment plant in Alberta. They're quite unique in their design and implementation. They don't use reagents or chemicals to do the testing and the monitoring. They give us real-time information on the quality of drinking water as it leaves the water treatment plant, using a sophisticated model and algorithm—don't ask me to explain it, please—so that no reagents and no chemicals have to be used. It's virtually maintenance-free.

That being said, I want to lay the groundwork for a bit of the expertise that we feel we have. It might not be a significant amount, but over the years we've been involved in the development of the impact analysis that was rolled out when we participated in the Neegan Burnside report. We felt the impact analysis was inadequate in that it didn't allow for enough time to have a thorough consultation and discussion about the impacts and ramifications of the different methods and methodologies for coming up with this piece of legislation.

AANDC's terms of reference for the impact analysis asked first nations to consider the impact on first nations of incorporation by reference of existing provincial regulations and to examine the elements of provincial law that may be addressed in the legislation. AANDC identified these elements in its discussion paper prepared in early 2009. They also required us to enlist the assistance of local experts in the analysis and to examine the impact of the regulatory regimes currently in place in the province.

AANDC stated that the purpose of the impact analysis was to seek input from first nations and first nations regional organizations on a proposed federal legislative framework for drinking water and waste water, based on the option of incorporating by reference existing provincial regulations. First nations only had two months to complete the work, which included a review and consideration of the five provincial statutes and 19 regulations, codes, and guidelines—about 149 pages of regulatory requirements—that collectively make up the provincial regulatory regime for drinking water and waste water.

We had to solicit input from 47 first nation communities in Alberta and their water system operators on the potential implications of subjecting first nations to the provincial regulatory regime. We also had to consider the potential impacts of incorporation by reference of the provincial regulatory regime and synthesize all of the above information into an impact analysis report. AANDC provided the AOTC with $22,000 in funding, or $468 per Alberta first nation, for the impact analysis.

In light of TSAG's extensive work on water matters with first nation communities in Alberta, the AOTC approached TSAG in early 2009 to assist with the creation of an impact analysis. Despite the grossly inadequate budget and the nearly impossible timeframe provided by AANDC, we reluctantly agreed to complete the impact analysis for the AOTC.

On April 6, 2009, TSAG submitted an analysis of the potential impacts of proposed new federal drinking water legislation to INAC on behalf of the AOTC. You have a copy, and it's on our website as well. AANDC stated in its terms of reference that once the impact analysis was complete, each of the 12 regional impact analysis reports would be submitted to the coordinating consultant who would roll up the results into a final summary report. This summary report would be provided to INAC once it has been reviewed by all the regional first nation organizations participating in the impact analysis.

We were provided with the draft summary report prepared by the Institute on Governance late in the afternoon of April 13, 2009. We were expected, along with other regional first nation organizations, to review the draft summary report prior to a meeting in Ottawa on April 15, 2009, at which time the report would be finalized. Of course, April 14 was spent travelling to Ottawa from Alberta and in practical terms, TSAG had little time to review the draft summary report.

From what we understand, these circumstances were not unique to Alberta first nations. Each of the first nation regional organizations received a draft summary report late in the day on April 13, 2009. Consequently, TSAG and first nations regional organizations from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia, the Atlantic region, Northwest Territories and Yukon made a request to AANDC to have 30 days for first nation regional organizations to review the draft IOG summary report. However, the request was denied. As a result, the same first nation regional organizations collectively insisted that the following disclaimer be added to the executive summary of the IOG summary report, and I quote, “The contents of this paper are the responsibility of the authors of the IOG report and do not necessarily reflect the positions or perspectives of the regional first nation impact analysis representatives or any particular first nation or regional organization.”

To date AANDC has not responded to any of the concerns and issues identified by TSAG and the AOTC in the impact analysis. The complete lack of response from AANDC to the impact analysis has left Alberta first nations deeply concerned and frustrated. Why did AANDC ask for and fund the impact analysis if it never intended to review it, respond to the concerns it raises, or to meet with Alberta first nations to discuss it?

It's clearly recommended that AANDC undertake a comprehensive consultation process with first nations with a view to collaboratively developing such legislation. Although there's legal obligation to consult, Alberta's first nations are most concerned about the practical implications of AANDC's failure to review, consider or respond to the AOTC's impact analysis. In simple terms, it means that Bill S-8 has been developed without any meaningful impact from first nations leaders, communities, organizations, or water system operators in Alberta.

I will now go to a brief summary of general concerns identified by the impact analysis, which represents the collective efforts of first nations leaders, communities, water system operators, staff, and concerned first nation members from across Alberta who attended workshops with TSAG, answered questions, phoned in their concerns and provided written input. It is a lengthy document, which is not surprising in light of what it was intended to accomplish. Unfortunately, TSAG does not have a budget to provide a French translation of the 220-page impact analysis for this committee, and AANDC has confirmed that it has not translated the document. In order to make it available to the members of this committee, TSAG has posted the document to our website, www.tsag.net.

Although we encourage honourable members to review the impact analysis, we have provided the following summary of concerns and issues identified in the impact analysis by first nations leadership and water system operators regarding the potential implications of applying the provincial regulatory regime to first nation communities.

It is important to stress that this summary does not include the portion of the impact analysis which addressed the potential impacts of the proposed legislation on first nations treaty rights and jurisdiction over water on reserve lands. Those issues were addressed in the AOTC submission, and will be by first nations from other regions, I'm sure.

Number one, our recommendation was resources, then regulation.

In the course of developing the impact analysis with TSAG, first nations leaders and water technicians stressed a serious overriding and persistent issue. Canada has consistently failed to provide first nations with adequate funding for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of first nations water plants and other drinking water infrastructure. AANDC has invested over $2 billion in recent years to tackle trouble spots in first nations communities, but more funding is required to bring all first nations water systems up to acceptable standards.

The cost of improving first nations water systems is being studied by the national engineering assessment, and has yet to be completed. If the core issue of adequate resources is not successfully addressed prior to the implementation of new drinking water legislation, many first nations will be unable to meet new regulatory standards. Moreover, the regulations could worsen the situation by increasing costs associated with monitoring, reporting, compliance, and the potential financial penalties related to enforcement.

AANDC has stated that the regulations will be phased in and applied to first nations communities when they are ready, yet no such commitment or requirement is contained within Bill S-8. Nobody wants new drinking water legislation to make the situation worse than it already is.

The expert panel stressed the problem of chronic inadequate funding is the most significant issue preventing the delivery of safe drinking water to first nations. As an example, a number of our communities have expended their annual budgets for their water treatment and water and waste water facilities in their first quarter. In Alberta with the high cost of labour, chemicals and utilities, come September or October often there's no money for chemicals, and they have to look at other ways and means.

Regulation alone will not be effective in ensuring safe drinking water unless the other requirements—a multi-barrier approach, cautious decision-making, and effective management systems—are met. These other requirements depend on adequate investment in both human resources and physical assets. Regulation without the investment needed to build capacity may even put drinking water safety at risk by diverting badly needed resources into regulatory frameworks and compliance costs.

Aboriginal Affairs' current policy is to fund 80% of the estimated rather than the actual operation and maintenance costs of first nations drinking water systems. In 2005 the Commissioner of the Environment found that the cost estimates underlying this percentage had not been revisited nor had they been updated for several years.

To our knowledge, AANDC's funding formula has not changed since 2005. Further, when negotiating funding agreements with first nations, Aboriginal Affairs ignores whether first nations have other resources to meet this requirement to fund the remaining 20%.

Many first nations water technicians told TSAG that the practical result for their communities is that they often have to operate and maintain their community drinking water systems on budgets that fall short of their actual costs. Some first nations communities have little choice but to reallocate money from other underfunded areas, such as health, education, or housing, to operate their water systems.

Nothing in the bill, INAC's discussion paper, or its plans for implementing the bill address this critical and fundamental issue. Regulation without the required resources is simply a recipe for perpetuating Canada's long record of failure with respect to first nations drinking water.

The chair of the expert panel, Dr. Harry Swain, said most clearly that if we want “to get good water on Indian reserves, then we should worry about the basic resources and then about a regulatory regime.”

Alberta first nations uniformly communicated the same message to TSAG during our work on the impact analysis. They want a clear commitment from Canada to address the problem of inadequate funding before developing new legislation or regulations.

Number two is first nations water and the Government of Alberta. The Government of Alberta's operating position is that first nations have no water rights or jurisdiction on reserve lands. It asserts that the province owns and controls all water resources within first nations lands.

AANDC has not considered the implications of Alberta's position and the often difficult resulting relationships that exist between many first nations and Alberta regarding water, even though the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations identified this concern as a barrier to the effective use of provincial regulations. This barrier could become even more significant if provincial officials were provided with a role in regulation of first nations water systems.

Water technicians and their chiefs and council are deeply concerned that the Alberta officials may use any authority they derive as a regulator from the federal government to also advance Alberta's assertion of control and ownership of first nation on-reserve water resources. There's particular concern about the potentially staggering cost implications of being made subject to Alberta's new water markets under this bill, where even small allocations of water are being sold for millions of dollars.

Currently AANDC has made no commitment to purchasing water allocations for first nations in Alberta's new water markets.

[Regena Crowchild]

Good morning.

First, I have a letter from my chief, which reads:

Thank you for allowing representatives from my nation, Tsuu T'ina, to make a presentation to you on Bill S-8.

On behalf of the Tsuu T'ina people, I hereby serve notice to you that the Tsuu T'ina First Nation has jurisdiction over water on our lands. Our jurisdiction is protected by Treaty 7 and the Constitution Act of 1982.

Canada, the successor state of Great Britain, has responsibility to adhere to the Constitution Act of 1982.

That was from Chief Roy Whitney of the Tsuu T'ina Nation.

First of all, we would like to introduce ourselves to you. We are the Tsuu T'ina Nation. We are signatories to Treaty 7.

Our reserve is rectangular in shape, measuring 18 miles in length running from east to west, and 6 miles in width running from north to south. It consists of 69,000 acres, more or less. Our population numbers total 1,863 as of the latest figures. Our reserve borders on the southwest city limits of the city of Calgary.

Two natural water systems run through our reserve, the Elbow River and Fish Creek. Both are heavily depended upon by the city of Calgary. A major river, the Bow River,which runs through the city of Calgary, is a part of our traditional territory and has been used by our nation since time immemorial.

All of these sources of water have been largely polluted by industrial, agricultural, and residential development. Hence, that is why we are very concerned about water pollution and safe drinking water.

Water, pursuant to the Van der Peet case, is integral to our culture. In addition to physical needs, water is an integral part of our ceremonies, our songs, and our stories, which in turn define who we are as a nation.

As a signatory to Treaty 7, our nation would like to remind the crown about Treaty 7. Treaty 7 is a peace treaty between two nations where our Chief Bull Head agreed to set aside part of our traditional territory as a reserve for our exclusive use so that we could continue our way of life and to share the rest of the traditional territory with the Euro newcomers in exchange for a number of guarantees, including: fiduciary protection from Euro newcomers' encroachment; lifelong education and health services; continued rights to hunt, fish, and trap; and money for economic development.

This proposed safe drinking water bill is another example of a continuing attempt by the crown to get out from its responsibilities under Treaty 7, but we would like to remind the crown that it owes fiduciary and fiscal responsibilities to our peoples. These responsibilities arise out of a number of sources included in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, Treaty 7 of 1877, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Supreme Court of Canada's cases, such as the Guerin case.

The Supreme Court of Canada has also reminded the Government of Canada that it must act with honour when dealing with first nations.

Our nation's view on Bill S-8 is that the crown is not acting very honourably and simply wants to relieve itself of its fiduciary duties.

The summary of Bill S-8 states:

This enactment addresses health and safety issues on reserve lands and certain other lands by providing for regulations to govern drinking water and waste water treatment in First Nations communities. Regulations could be made on a province-by-province basis to mirror existing provincial regulatory regimes, with adaptations to address the circumstances of First Nations living on those lands.

This summary reflects what is in the proposed act. The proposed act is strictly about a regulatory regime and does not deal with health standards. It follows the general practice of the federal government adopting provincial legislative and regulatory regimes and applying them to first nations lands.

All indications are that the proposed act will simply adopt provincial laws and regulations regarding safe drinking water and waste water systems, but the reality is that a large amount of the water pollution on reserve lands is caused by weak provincial water standards and/or by lack of enforcement of the law and regulations of the province. Consequently, the federal government should take a lead role in assisting first nations to develop standards for safe drinking water on reserve as opposed to deferring to provincial legislation and regulatory regimes.

Bill S-8 makes references to sources of drinking water. In Canada there is no first nation that has control of sources of drinking water, other than wells actually located on reserves.

Further, there is reference to requiring permits for a body entity that may affect drinking water sources by its activity. A body entity could include an oil company. For instance, fracking is an activity that does affect underground water systems, but the proposed act does not mention anything about regulating that type of activity, other than requiring a permit.

The proposed act is very cognizant of provincial jurisdiction over water and other natural resources. It becomes very clear the federal government does not want to take a leadership role with regard to safe drinking water, but simply wants to off-load its health responsibilities for first nations peoples to the provinces, which have no constitutional responsibility to Indians.

The proposed act makes it very clear that water allocations will not be affected by the proposed act. Water allocations are regulated through water licences issued by the provinces. The issue here is what if there is a conflict between the drinking water needs of a first nation and water allocation for irrigation and industrial purposes. The proposed act makes it very clear that water allocations by the provinces will be paramount over drinking water needs of first nations.

Under the proposed act, the Governor in Council will have authority over a broad spectrum of regulatory powers. There is no mention of chief and council in Bill S-8. There is mention of conferring powers of a person or a body to carry out the regulations. Since there is no mention of chief and council, the body will most likely be a non-Indian, a corporation, or a provincial administrative agency. In other words, an outsider will most likely be in charge of safe drinking water for our reserve community. If a non-Indian or a corporation is in charge of safe drinking water on the reserve, it is more than likely the result will be about profit and not health.

A large part of the proposed act revolves around protecting government officials, both federal and provincial, from lawsuits. The government can make all the laws and regulations, but does not want to take any responsibility for mistakes, omissions, or negligence. Chiefs and councils will be held responsible for these matters under the act.

Water is not specifically mentioned in the Canadian constitution. The federal and provincial governments claim authority over water through implications such as sea coast and inland fisheries, navigation and shipping, municipal institutions, and property and civil rights. But first nations have a much superior right to water than provincial and federal governments have, whether you look at it from an aboriginal and treaty right—section 35 of the Constitution Act—or from a prior appropriation perspective.

Based on this right to water, Bill S-8 should really be about treaty implementation. It should be first nations enacting laws and regulations regarding safe drinking water, not the federal and provincial governments.

In conclusion, we are here to inform you that Tsuu T’ina Nation rejects Bill S-8 in its entirety, as it is not according to the spirit and intent of Treaty 7. Treaty 7 and our inherent aboriginal rights are protected by your Constitution Act of 1982.

Please be informed that Tsuu T’ina Nation is currently developing an act that addresses the water needs of our citizens on Tsuu T’ina lands.

Thank you.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Okay.

Minister, I was looking at the legislative summary of Bill S-8, which provides for the possibility of implementing regulations that would require permits to be obtained as a condition of engaging in any activity on first nations lands that could affect the quality of drinking water.

I would like to know what you think about that. Can the same reasoning be applied to first nations traditional territories, considering that the industrial activities carried out on those territories often involve reaching groundwater and lead to a noticeable drop in the quality of drinking water on Indian reserves?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I have a quick one-minute question, Minister.

Bill S-8 would establish enforceable standards and protocols for water and waste water management. While provinces and territories each have their own safe water standards, there are currently no legally enforceable standards for first nations communities. How long will it take for regulations to be in place?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to you, Minister, and to your officials for taking time out of your busy schedules to meet with us. We certainly appreciate it.

Minister, Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, is crucial to ensuring that first nations have the same health and safety protections concerning drinking water and waste water treatment that are currently in place for other Canadians. Can you expand on this? I know you touched on it in your remarks, but will first nations be involved in the development and implementation of the regulations?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Ms. Bennett, you raise an important concern that we have and which we share also. If you remember, in 2011 you wrote to my predecessor indicating the concerns of your party on this issue, and you even quoted the “Report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations” of November 2006 saying “it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements”.

Now, when you look at Bill S-8.... I asked you at the beginning to please look at this as part of the comprehensive strategy, which is built on those three pillars—

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

To continue with regard to consultation, one of the results of the extensive consultation process was the non-derogation clause developed in collaboration with the Alberta Assembly of Treaty Chiefs, AOTC, which specifically addresses the relationship between legislation and aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. A preamble has also been added to describe the government's intention to develop regulations to work with first nations.

Why does Bill S-8 include a clause that deals with aboriginal and treaty rights?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you for detailing the ways in which we have been engaging with first nations partners since 2006 and every step of the way with regard to this proposed legislation.

In fact, after the last iteration of the legislation, Bill S-11, died on the order paper, we took action to address some of the concerns that had been raised by some first nations and other stakeholders by making a number of amendments.

On the current bill, Bill S-8, we've also continued to consult and have taken action to address some of those concerns that were first raised with regard to the opt-in provision for self-governing first nations.

You stated in the House during second reading that the government has chosen to remove clause 14 from Bill S-8, as was also mentioned earlier. Can you explain how this amendment will address concerns related to the opt-in provision?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

When you said that Metro Vancouver deplored the lack of consultation, I was going to ask where they were during the last seven years. Their concerns were brought to my attention; as a matter of fact, they wrote to me. I wrote back explaining that municipalities were welcome and it was important that they participate in this process and where appropriate, continue to work with our officials. Regarding the concern on the level of services to first nations communities and how this will be enforced, I reminded them that we had committed to working with first nations, provincial and territorial governments, and other stakeholders to develop appropriate compliance and enforcement mechanisms.

In regard to liability, as you know, currently there are no legally enforceable drinking water and waste water treatment standards, and potential liabilities today are not clear. The responsibilities and corresponding potential liabilities of these parties will be similar to the responsibilities and corresponding potential liabilities of provinces and territories. Whoever has a water system has a range of liabilities that exist. That is why Bill S-8 is enabling legislation. Paragraph 5(1)(o) clearly says that the regulation can “set limits on the liability of any person or body exercising a power or performing a duty under the regulations”.

These will be developed in cooperation with first nations and stakeholders. The corresponding liabilities that already exist for provincial governments or municipalities would seem to any reasonable person to be the kinds of liabilities that would apply to an operator. The regulation enables the conclusion of agreements between first nations and third parties. It is clear that the regulation will allow the setting of limits on liabilities for first nations or a third party operator by an amendment that would enable the regulation to deem who is the owner of the system that is being operated.

The first question that you raised as to—

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Minister.

My second question has to do with liability. I understand some changes were made to the bill before us with regard to liability for third party systems assumed by first nations. We've received a briefing note from Metro Vancouver. It has a position paper on Bill S-8. In your speech today you indicated that municipalities had been consulted, but according to Metro Vancouver, one of the larger cities in Canada—and there are first nations in close proximity to Vancouver—the proposed legislation raises a number of concerns.

One of them is the lack of consultation and local government input, because municipalities may well be the providers of water, but the second issue is around liability. First nations have raised questions regarding liability if they are the owner-operators of the system and regarding their own capacity to enforce those regulations.

When you have a third party provider, such as a municipality, how will their liability be impacted?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the committee's review of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act.

I'm pleased to appear before this committee today to present this important piece of legislation developed to ensure that first nations communities throughout Canada have the same health and safety protections for drinking water as all other Canadians have. I truly hope that the committee will support the passage of this legislation before we adjourn in June.

Bill S-8 should not be seen in isolation. Bill S-8 is an essential part of our government's larger comprehensive strategy to improve the quality of drinking water for residents of first nations communities, through three pillars: capacity development, which is important; continued investment in infrastructure; and the development of a clear regulatory framework.

Our government recognizes the necessity for capacity and infrastructure improvements in the provision of safe drinking water on reserves. I know that many interested parties are concerned about the issue of on-site capacities and infrastructure. That is why our government doubled the funding for the Circuit Rider Training Program, which has helped support and train hundreds of first nations water and wastewater system operators. And this program has produced significant results. For example, since July 2011, the percentage of first nations systems that have primary operators certified to manage the drinking water systems has increased from 51% to 60%, and the percentage of certified wastewater system operators has increased from 42% to almost 54%.

In addition, our government continues to make investments in water and wastewater infrastructure. Between 2006 and 2014, our government will have invested approximately $3 billion to support the delivery of drinking water and wastewater services to first nation communities. You will recall that, as part of Economic Action Plan 2012, $330.8 million is being invested over two years. As a result of those significant investments, the percentage of high-risk water systems has decreased by 8.1%, and the percentage of high-risk wastewater systems by 2.1%.

Mr. Chair, I can assure the committee that our government will continue to invest in water and wastewater infrastructure.

However, despite these significant investments and progress, one key factor remains unaddressed—the absence of an enforceable regulatory regime on reserves. Until regulations are in place, we know that achieving long-term sustainable progress will be challenging. Modern equipment and good intentions are great, but they need regulations to support them. That is why all municipalities and communities across Canada have adopted regulations. Regulations are essential because they map out clear lines of responsibility for each of the many steps required to safeguard water quality, such as source water protection, regular quality testing, and adherence to legislated—and therefore enforceable—standards for water treatment and distribution.

Our government believes that first nation communities across this country should have access to the same quality of safe, clean and reliable drinking water as all other Canadians living off reserve. This can only be achieved by having a strong regulatory framework in place.

The proposed legislation now before the committee will fill this regulatory gap. Should Bill S-8 receive royal assent, our government will continue to work with first nations and other stakeholders to develop regulations on a region-by-region basis. Developing regulations by region will enable the government and first nations to partner with municipalities and regional technical experts.

In addition, this collaborative, region-by-region approach will also leverage the value of existing regulations. Rather than creating entirely new regulations, the most efficient approach is to build upon existing provincial and territorial regulatory frameworks and adapt them as needed in order to reflect specific local conditions for each first nation community.

Let me be clear, Mr. Chair. This approach would not take jurisdiction away from first nations, nor would it give a province, territory, or municipality jurisdiction over first nation lands. By developing regulations that are comparable to those that exist off reserve, first nations will be better positioned to partner with neighbouring municipalities in the delivery of water treatment services and to cooperate on other matters, such as operator training, business ventures, and the adoption of new technologies.

Now, it will take some time to develop and implement these regulations across Canada. For this reason, the regulations will be phased in to ensure first that there is adequate time for the government and first nations to bring the drinking water and waste water infrastructure and the operating capacity to the levels required to conform with the new regulations. There's no point in implementing regulations unless that capacity and that level of infrastructure are in place; otherwise, as you know, it doesn't make sense. As we've stated many times, we're not going to roll out regulations until first nations have the capacity to abide by them, because health and safety remain our ultimate goal.

I fully recognize also that some first nations do not have the resources needed to help develop these regulations. Back in April 2012, the former minister, Mr. John Duncan, sent a letter to all chiefs and band councils confirming that our government will provide the funds needed for eligible activities.

We have already, for example, provided funding to the Atlantic Policy Congress to support their work in researching and analyzing the development of regulations for first nations in the Atlantic region. It is important to recognize that the collaborative and region-by-region approach builds on the extensive ongoing engagement and consultation that have been a defining characteristic of the joint action plan on first nations drinking water.

This joint action plan was launched by the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations in March 2006 to address the drinking water concerns in first nation communities. Over the last seven years, our government has been engaging with first nations, regional first nation chiefs, first nation organizations, provincial and territorial government officials, municipalities, and other stakeholders on legislation for safe drinking water and waste water every step of the way.

Our government will continue to consult with first nations and other stakeholders on the development of regulations. As a result of that collaborative process, there have been 10 amendments made to this legislation.

Some of the key differences between the previous version of this bill and the current Bill S-8 include: the addition of language to the preamble to demonstrate our commitment to work with first nations on the development of regulations; clarification that regulations would not include the power to allocate water supplies or license users of water for any purpose other than for the provision of drinking water; the removal of language that could be interpreted as powers to compel first nations into an agreement with third parties; and the inclusion of the non-derogation clause addressing the relationship between the legislation and aboriginal and treaty rights.

The non-derogation clause now found in Bill S-8, in clause 3, was proposed by first nations during the without prejudice discussions we held with them. The clause essentially prioritizes the safety of drinking water over issues of aboriginal and treaty rights. That is an important point. In my view, this is entirely appropriate, because safe drinking water is essential to human health.

As I stated previously, the goal of this proposed legislation is the health and safety of first nations. The inclusion of a non-derogation clause in the bill is one of the many accommodation measures that resulted directly from consultations with first nations.

We continue to listen. More recently, as many of you know, concerns have been raised by various stakeholders regarding the opt-in provision, the famous clause 14 in Bill S-8, which would provide self-governing first nations and those with land claim agreements the ability to opt in to a federal regulatory regime if they so choose. Specifically, it was suggested this provision could create jurisdictional challenges and impact ongoing and future land claim agreements, among other issues.

As I stated in the House two weeks ago, after careful consideration and extensive discussions between my officials and these stakeholders, I am recommending to this committee the removal of this provision from Bill S-8. I want to assure the members of the committee that removing the opt-in provision would have no negative impact on any first nation.

Further, I believe removing this clause serves as yet another good example of positive results produced by ongoing collaborative discussions with first nations and other stakeholders. I hope that members of this committee will see the value of this change and will support this amendment.

To conclude, let me reiterate, Mr. Chair, that the proposed legislation now before this committee is the product of a lengthy and comprehensive process of study, engagement, and meaningful consultations with first nations and other stakeholders. This bill is an essential part of a larger collaborative strategy—which I mentioned at the beginning—to improve the quality of drinking water available to residents of first nation communities.

This strategy has produced remarkable results, and yet, until regulations are in place, the progress made remains at risk. Safe drinking water requires a regime that defines responsibilities and establishes clear lines of accountability. In response to those who feel we should wait until all investments in infrastructure have been completed, I say that first nations should not have to wait any longer to have access to safe, clean drinking water. I want to respectfully point out that this depends on the comprehensive strategy I talked about earlier.

It has taken seven years for us to get to this point—seven years of discussions, consultations, engagements and investments have produced this legislation before you today. We believe that now is the time to move forward. The health and safety of first nations is an urgent priority. Through continued investments, this bill will bring the quality of the drinking water and the treatment of wastewater on reserves to the same standards enjoyed by all other Canadians.

Safe drinking water should be available to all Canadians, and Bill S-8 will help achieve that goal.

Mr. Chair, the solution is now in your committee's capable hands. Thank you. I will now answer any questions the members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we'll call this meeting to order.

This is the 73rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we are beginning our study with regard to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

Today we have the minister with us. It's always a privilege to have the minister before us.

We appreciate your willingness, Minister, to join us. We will turn it over to you for your opening statement. Then, as is the custom in this committee, we will begin with rounds of questions.

Mr. Minister, please.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, between 2006 and 2014, including the budget 2012 investment, the Government of Canada will have invested approximately $3 billion to support first nations communities in managing their water and waste water infrastructure and related public health activities. The government is prioritizing these investments to high- and medium-risk systems to address factors that are the greatest contributors to risks such as capacity and training in operations and maintenance.

In 2011-12, the government supported 402 major and minor first nations water and waste water infrastructure projects and 286 are currently planned for 2012-13. Could the parliamentary secretary please inform us how Bill S-8 will help protect Canada's substantial investments in first nations' water and waste water systems?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be 10 minutes and then will allow five minutes for questions for the minister.

I am proud to stand today and talk about what our government is doing for first nations with respect to providing improved water and waste water services to their residents. Our government engaged in the largest comprehensive study of water and waste water systems this country has ever seen, identifying and going through every water and waste water system so that we could prioritize how we could improve water and waste water.

The Government of Canada and first nations have shared the goal of ensuring that first nations have the same access to safe, clean drinking water in their communities as all other Canadians do. Access to safe drinking water, the effective treatment of water and the protection of sources of drinking water in first nations communities is critical to ensuring the health and safety of first nations. I want to assure all members in this House tonight that this is an area of great concern for our government.

We are targeting three key areas to ensure that residents of first nations communities can readily access clean and safe drinking water, like all Canadians. The three things we look at are enforceable standards and protocols; infrastructure investments in specific projects; and enhanced capacity-building, operations and training for those treatment systems.

In the area of enforceable standards and protocols, I have to say that we have made significant strides. On February 29, 2012, after significant consultation with first nations, Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was introduced in the Senate. This is enabling legislation. If passed, it would make it possible for our government to work with first nations, and not just first nations but also other stakeholders, to develop regulations comparable to those that safeguard drinking water in other places across Canada.

Currently, legally enforceable protections governing drinking water and waste water do not exist on most first nations lands. It is our government's view that anyone committed to better safeguarding water quality on first nations lands should see the importance of supporting this legislation. Of course, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the House to support this legislation when it comes back for a vote. It is now moving to the committee. This legislation would clearly lay out the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in drinking water in first nations communities.

I want to underscore that the proposed legislation is the product of engagement between the government and first nations on safe drinking water legislation and enforceable standards over the last seven years. That is how long this consultation has been going on. There have been numerous recommendations concerning federal water regulations, including reports by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, the Office of the Auditor General, the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, and the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. There was also the “National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems”, which is the study I referred to at the beginning of my speech.

First nations have also supported the concept of water regulations. When the proposed legislation was first introduced, Chief Lawrence Paul of the Millbrook First Nation, who is also the co-chair of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat, spoke to the potential of the bill for first nations communities. He said:

First Nations will be able to look forward to having the same protections that other Canadians have around the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of wastewater in their communities. This is not only an important health and safety issue, but will help build confidence in our infrastructure and help create a better climate for investment.

Should the proposed legislation be passed, further engagement with first nations on the development of federal regulations would follow. This would support the development of federal regulations that would be tailored to the unique circumstances of first nations. However, the opposition has indicated yet again that they will not support this important legislation for first nations. I do not understand this opposition. The time for this legislation is now.

Creating federal regulations will take time, and they would be implemented over a number of years. This would allow the government and first nations to bring water and waste water infrastructure and capacity to the level required to meet those very regulations.

Our government's vision for supporting first nations to improve water and waste water services for the residents also includes capital investments. Between 2006 and 2014, the federal government will have invested approximately $3 billion in water and waste water infrastructure and related public health activities to support first nations communities in managing their water and waste water systems. That is a significant investment.

Economic action plan 2012 also included an additional $330 million over two years to help sustain progress made to build and renovate water infrastructure on reserve and to support the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality for first nations. More specifically, this money is going towards training for operators of water and waste water systems on reserve, operating costs of water and waste water systems and capital investments for the highest-risk systems.

Because of the comprehensive study we did, the first of its kind, we were able to prioritize water and waste water systems that are in need of immediate help. That is what we are doing with those funds.

With the new funding last year, the government was able to prioritize investments to high and medium-risk systems in over 50 first nations communities, including Canoe Lake First Nation, Tallcree First Nation and Nazco First Nation. These estimates include $137.4 million for the first nations water and waste water action plan. Again, these are additional funds being invested in water and waste water.

This funding will be allocated in 2013 and 2014 in three areas of planned expenditures. Operations and maintenance will receive $46.1 million, $30.2 million will be for training for first nations and $50.8 million will go toward capital investments. However, that is not all. Health Canada is also supporting first nations with an investment of $54.8 million committed through economic action plan 2012, which is for water-related public health activities.

The federal government recognizes that in some first nations communities, there are issues regarding in-home access to water and waste water services. Manitoba's four Island Lake first nations are one such example. I am pleased to say that this government invested $5.5 million in 2011 to bring running water to 100 houses in that community.

I want to underscore the fact that our government is committed to ensuring that first nations have the same access to safe, clean drinking water in their communities as all other Canadians. This means not only setting our sights on reducing the number of medium and high risk systems, but also directing investments to capacity and training to operate and maintain those systems. The 2011 national assessment results underscore the critical importance of having trained and certified operators to reduce the risk and help ensure that the drinking water in first nations communities is safe. Operation and maintenance, operator qualification and record keeping account for 60% of the risk measured.

As I outlined earlier, the federal government's economic action plan 2012 year one investment includes more than $30 million for training first nations. Our government provides funding for operator training courses and for operator certificate training and registration costs in all regions. Training helps to ensure that operators have the level of training and skills required to operate and maintain the water and waste water systems.

I want to take a moment to highlight another important program. That is, of course, the government's circuit rider training program. The program, for those who do not know, is a specialized training program that provides first nations operators with ongoing on-site training and mentoring on how to operate their water and waste water systems. We invest approximately $10 million a year into the circuit rider training program across the country.

It is clear that this government has made working with first nations partners to improve on reserve water and waste water a priority. Through progress on enforceable standards and protocols, through sustainable capital investments and by supporting enhanced capacity building and operation training, we are delivering on those results.

I am confident we will continue to deliver results and make progress on this important issue.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

Second Reading

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me to speak to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

We too often disregard the importance of water in Canada. We have more than two million lakes and the largest supply of fresh water in the world, so we often take water for granted. Even though this resource is essential to life, the environment and our economy, water is not immune to contamination.

Protecting the quality of our water is extremely important to everyone, whether we live in an urban or rural area, or on a reserve.

Unfortunately, it is clear to me that the Conservatives do not care much about protecting our water.

My Motion No. 400 was designed to restore balance between urban and rural areas. This motion, which received unanimous support on the opposition side, aimed to develop a reasoned and comprehensive solution to a problem that affects water quality and public safety.

However, the government has decided not to take action. It claimed that the provinces were responsible for regulating septic tanks, thus shirking any responsibility. If the government had had the political will to take action, we could have worked with the provinces, as stated in the motion, and respected their jurisdictions.

Today, we can see that the government's reaction to my motion was ill-advised and narrow-minded. The same could be said for Bill S-8.

I do not think that the solution offered in Bill S-8 is reasoned or comprehensive. There are many problems with this bill: it does not respect first nations' ancestral rights, it does not include the necessary investment, there was no consultation, and the bill is not compatible with provincial laws.

I will talk about these issues more another time, since they are recurrent problems with this government's aboriginal affairs legislation, especially when it comes to violating rights and failing to consult.

Mr. Speaker, before concluding today I want to say that I have heard the comments made today by members in the House that we do not have to consult when we put forward legislation. However, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People states that we do need free, prior and informed consent when we are talking about first nations legislation. This is something that the government has failed to do again and again. It is not a choice that we have. It is about rights and something that the international community is begging us to do.

I am looking forward to speaking more about this next time.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member. It is simple. First nations should have access to safe drinking water and those types of measures, the same things that every other Canadian enjoys in Canada, including every member in this House. My understanding is that this legislation before us today has been seven years in the making. There has been continuous dialogue between the Government of Canada and first nations. Some of the concerns first nations brought to the table have been incorporated into Bill S-8.

The member mentioned consultations with first nations. Could she elaborate and provide this House with more information regarding those consultations between first nations and the government, and also, after seven years, why it is so important to move this legislation forward?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, most first nations communities do not have regulations in place that safeguard water quality at all. As we have heard, access to clean, safe and reliable drinking water is an important determinant of health and a driver of socio-economic development.

Bill S-8, safe drinking water for first nations act, will enable the government with first nations to develop the regulations that the member is referring to, to provide that access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water to men, women and children living on first nations lands. As I stated in my remarks earlier, the goal of this legislation is to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, can access safe drinking water.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the important issue of the health and safety of all Canadian citizens, and, in particular, on Canada's first nations and their right to have access to the same safe, clean, reliable drinking water that other Canadian citizens enjoy.

Bill S-8, safe drinking water for first nations act, will enable the government to develop regulations with first nations to provide access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water to men, women and children living on first nations lands.

My support for Bill S-8 is further founded on two facts: the proposed legislation has been developed in collaboration with first nations; and, upon royal assent, regulations will be developed on a region-by-region basis in collaboration with first nations, provinces, territories and other stakeholders.

Bill S-8 proposes a mechanism to resolve another complex problem: the lack of a regulatory foundation to protect the quality of drinking water available in first nations communities.

This proposed legislation is the product of years of engagement, consultation and collaboration with first nations. There have been formal and informal meetings, town hall sessions, without prejudice discussions and workshops. Hundreds of people, including representatives of the Assembly of First Nations and associations of first nations chiefs, along with residents of first nations communities, have participated in these sessions. Their input has shaped the contents of the legislation now before us in several significant ways.

Bill S-8 calls for this collaboration to continue. Governmental officials would work alongside their first nations counterparts on a region-by-region basis to establish a series of regulatory regimes. Under this process, the parties would craft regimes that could draw on existing provincial, territorial or first nations regimes and adapt them to the particular circumstances of first nations. This is entirely appropriate, as a one-size-fits-all approach could never hope to accommodate the social, economic and geographic diversity of first nations communities. A regulatory approach that works for a remote community in northern Manitoba, for instance, might not work for a first nation in urban British Columbia.

Of course, every regime would have to satisfy minimum standards for safety, the same standards required by the provincial and territorial laws that protect drinking water quality off reserve. Under the regimes established through Bill S-8, drinking water would have to be sampled and tested in accordance with established methods and standards, and contamination thresholds would have to be based on scientific evidence.

This co-operative approach would ensure that those who would be subject to the regulations would have a role in creating them. This would help promote a greater understanding of the new regimes as well as ensure that these regimes are reflective of the diverse needs of each region.

We can expect that the federal regulations governing drinking water in a given first nation would be similar to the regulations governing the drinking water of nearby communities. Complementary regimes would open the door to further collaboration, such as joint training and certification programs or shared treatment and distribution facilities. This would, in turn, inspire co-operation on other common issues and opportunities.

Ultimately, of course, the goal is to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, can access safe drinking water. Access to clean, safe and reliable drinking water is an important determinant of health and a driver of socio-economic development. Yet the truth is that most first nation communities do not have regulations in place that safeguard water quality.

The current regime comprises a tangled web of protocols and funding agreements that are not legally enforceable. As a result, standards are not clear and it is impossible to hold anyone accountable for substandard and unsafe drinking water.

As I mentioned a moment ago, Bill S-8 is the product of a lengthy and collaborative process. Seven years ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development called on the Government of Canada to address the regulatory gap related to drinking water in first nations communities. Since then, two other authoritative bodies—an expert panel and a standing committee of the other place—studied the matter and made similar recommendations.

Even the Liberals, back in November 2011, put forward a motion calling on the government to improve first nations' access to safe drinking water. The House fully endorsed that motion. I hope that now my hon. colleagues opposite will put aside their partisanship, honour their noble commitment to improving access to safe drinking water and back this important legislation, which goes far beyond the words of that motion.

The collaboration that inspired Bill S-8 began in 2006, when the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations announced a plan of action on first nations' drinking water. This joint undertaking, the plan of action, called for a number of measures, including the development of appropriate regulations. From the outset, the government has directly involved various first nations organizations in the development of legislative options.

In 2007, the expert panel created under the plan of action met with first nations representatives and technical experts from all over the country and subsequently recommended the development of safe drinking water legislation. Departmental officials met with the Assembly of First Nations technical water experts group to discuss options for this legislation. Then, in 2008, the government began to meet with representatives of first nations groups.

The following year, the government released a discussion paper based on the option of incorporation by reference of provincial and territorial standards and held a series of 13 engagement sessions. It heard from more than 500 members of first nations. Although a consensus emerged about the need to address health and environmental concerns, there remained concerns about the proposed approach to legislation.

After the engagement sessions, the government held a series of meetings with regional and national organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations. These discussions involved a range of concerns about the proposed legislation.

The Government of Canada then introduced into the Senate an earlier version of the legislation, Bill S-11. The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples began to review the proposed legislation and heard from more than 40 witnesses before the previous Parliament was dissolved.

Rather than simply reintroduce the same legislation, our government chose to collaborate further to identify and incorporate improvements. In particular, officials from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada held without prejudice discussions with first nations groups. Invites were sent to first nations organizations from all over Canada, and some first nations organizations were willing to work with the government to improve the legislation, in particular those from Alberta and the Atlantic.

During these discussions, new ideas emerged to address specific concerns with the previous version of the bill. Several changes were made, and as such, I am proud to say that first nations organizations directly influenced the contents of Bill S-8. As a result of this collaboration, the legislation now before us is stronger.

Thousands of people residing in first nations communities lack regulations that safeguard the quality of their drinking water. Bill S-8 would provide authority for the government to draft and implement appropriate regulations, working with first nations. These regulations would help protect the health and safety of first nations men, women and children.

This important legislation fully deserves the support of the House. I urge my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of Bill S-8.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite hypocritical to hear that from the Liberal member over there.

For 13 years they were in government, and for 13 years they did not get anything done. They keep talking about it, but they never put in any legislation. In the past, all they wanted to do was put motions forward.

What we are seeing here right now is legislation to help first nations individuals in first nations communities. Being first nations myself, I hear the rigmarole of what is being said across the floor, and it is atrocious knowing what she is saying. That is what I find appalling.

I look back at November 2011. The Liberal member for Toronto Centre put forward a motion calling on the government to urgently address first nations' access to safe drinking water. Here is another motion. It is not legislation. All she does is talk about it.

Now, more than a year and a half later, we are hearing debate on Bill S-8, now in second reading for the fourth time. This is the second iteration of the bill. We believe that now is the time to move forward.

I hope that my hon. colleagues opposite will put aside their partisanship and support the bill.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I start today, I would like to say that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

I fully support Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, and I encourage my hon. colleagues to endorse the proposed legislation.

Bill S-8 is an important piece of a larger initiative that will have a tangible, practical and positive impact on a long-standing problem: unsafe drinking water in first nations communities.

More than seven years ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development conducted an in-depth study of first nations drinking water. The report concluded that a large part of the problem is that responsibility for the various tasks involved in the treatment and delivery of drinking water on first nation lands is shared among many groups.

Here is a definitive statement from the report:

Until a regulatory regime is established that is comparable with the one that is in place in the provinces, INAC and Health Canada cannot ensure that First Nations people living on reserves will have continuing access to safe drinking water.

The same conclusion was reached in every other authoritative report on the matter, including most recently in the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems, published in July 2011.

The national assessment was the most rigorous, comprehensive and independent evaluation of on-reserve water and waste water systems ever undertaken by a federal government. The report is full of valuable information that can help point the way toward further progress. It highlights the variations in the quality of drinking water in first nations communities and the diverse reasons for successes and challenges. The report also recommends the “establishment of a regulatory framework for water and waste water systems”.

Bill S-8 alone, of course, will not ensure access to safe drinking water in first nations communities, but it would create a legislative framework to enable the government, together with first nations and other stakeholders, to develop enforceable standards, the chains of accountability that are absolutely necessary to support progress.

Let me remind the House of the tragic examples of water contamination in communities across the country.

In North Battleford, Saskatchewan, in 2001, over 7,000 people became sick because there had been a failure to properly treat the drinking water. I too drank the water and was also sick at that time.

In Walkerton, Ontario, in 2000, seven citizens died and more than 2,500 became sick. In the aftermath of the Walkerton tragedy, the Ontario government developed one of the most stringent drinking water regulatory regimes in Canada.

In order to avoid a tragedy like Walkerton happening in first nations communities, we need regulations. This is what Bill S-8 would enable the government and first nations to do.

To address the other factors that contribute to unsafe drinking water, this government, in partnership with first nations and first nation organizations, has taken a long list of actions. From 2006 to 2014, the Government of Canada will have invested approximately $3 billion, including $330.8 million in economic action plan 2012, in water and waste water infrastructure in first nations.

These investments supported more than 400 projects, such as the construction and upgrade of treatment systems, the protection of water sources and the installation of piping networks and holding tanks. More than 40 projects were completed last year alone. Actions were also taken to train and certify hundreds of operators and to publish and distribute treatment protocols and operational guidelines.

The combined effect of these actions has been significant, but much more remains to be done.

The establishment of regulatory regimes would support further progress in a number of ways. Practically speaking, Bill S-8 would enable the development of regulations to protect sources of drinking water located on first nations lands from contamination. The regulations stemming from Bill S-8 would help strengthen oversight and clearly lay out the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved, including private companies operating drinking water and waste water systems on first nations lands.

During the discussions that took place over the last six years to develop this legislation, numerous first nation public works specialists expressed the need to have tools to do their work properly and to have access to appropriate safeguards to provide clean, safe and reliable drinking water to fellow community members. While protocols and guidelines exist to help operators in first nations communities, these documents lay out no enforceable standards. Regulations will offer a mechanism by which standards will be clearly stated, realistic and tailored to the circumstances of first nations. They will also provide a mechanism through which an enforcement body can support the work of these operators and guide them in their important work.

This government recognizes that partnership can be a powerful force, and the process to develop regulations will be key in bringing this commitment to reality.

Incorporation by reference of provincial and territorial drinking water legislation, with the adaptations to reflect the needs and circumstances of first nations communities, will foster collaboration in many ways.

First, regulatory development will enable the government and first nations to work together to develop the regulations that are essential to the health and safety of first nations children, women and men.

Second, incorporation by reference with adaptations will allow for comparable standards to be established between on- and off-reserve communities. Future regulations would extend the possibility of first nations, provinces, territories and municipalities working together to deliver safe drinking water and waste water services on first nations lands, exchange best practices and possibly strengthen partnerships that are already in place.

For instance, first nations and neighbouring municipalities sometimes share drinking water services through municipal-type service agreements, as in British Columbia, where the community of Kwakiutl receives drinking water from the neighbouring town of Port Hardy. We hope that having comparable standards on and off reserve would facilitate these partnerships.

Bill S-8 and future regulations would help support first nations communities by bringing their drinking water and waste water services to a level and quality of service comparable to those enjoyed by other Canadians living in communities of similar size and location.

The bill is a crucial component of this government's numerous actions over the years to improve the safety of drinking water on reserve. It would have a significant and tangible impact on first nations communities.

Ultimately, Bill S-8 would enable first nations to work with federal and regional officials to develop regimes tailored to their circumstances while respecting science-based standards for health and safety.

I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill S-8.

The House resumed from November 26, 2012, consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Bill S-8—Time allocation motion

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what ignorance from that side of the House.

The fact is that for more than seven years, the governments, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, have not respected their treaty obligations.

Again, here is a quote from April 29, a resolution of the United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising First Nations. It says:

UCCMM First Nations has the right to free and prior and informed consent on anything that affects us. We have not given out free, prior or informed consent on any of the legislation passed by this sitting of the legislature.

Again, one of the bills is Bill S-8. There is no first nation that does not want fresh, clean water.

The minister spoke about the places he had seen where the government had invested in clean water, where there was water that people could actually drink. He is not talking about the ones where they cannot drink it. The minister is forcing first nations to have legislation that they cannot even afford to put a system in place.

First, will the minister put money with that? Second, will he agree that all first nations should be heard, especially the United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising First Nations?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the minister's responses regarding the consultations he held.

He brags that he consulted a number of first nations. However, the Assembly of First Nations strongly opposes this bill.

Had the Conservatives consulted the Assembly of First Nations, the assembly would have told them what amendments should have been made to this bill. I can think of a lot of them. I will not rattle them off for you the way the minister does for the groups he supposedly consulted.

Consulting groups is not enough; we must listen to them as well. When groups ask us to make amendments, we need to do it. That is why we want to continue debate on Bill S-8. The government has obviously not done its job. It has not made the necessary amendments.

Introducing legislation on safe drinking water is not enough. That needs to be done, but funding must be provided too. That is what the Assembly of First Nations is asking for, but that is not in Bill S-8. That is why we want to continue the debate, to explain all the good amendments and changes to be made to the bill.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member taken the time to read the bill, he could have explained to the mayor in question that the proposed legislation itself would have no impact whatsoever on non-first nations governments. As such, Bill S-8 and subsequent regulations would not force municipalities to provide drinking water services to first nations, nor delegate powers or costs to municipalities. Furthermore, Bill S-8 would not affect municipalities' abilities to choose to pursue or not municipal service agreements with first nations.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians access to safe drinking water is taken for granted. This is not the case for many first nations communities. Bill S-8 is crucial to ensuring first nations have the same health and safety regulations and protections concerning drinking water and waste water treatment that are currently enjoyed by other Canadians.

It has taken seven years to get to this point, seven years of continuous dialogue with first nations, including formal engagement sessions and implementing measures to accommodate the concerns of first nations. The legislation before Parliament today is the result of hard work and collaboration. Now is the time for action.

Could the minister explain how time allocating Bill S-8 would help fulfill this long-standing legislative gap and enhance access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water for first nations communities?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Another time allocation motion, Mr. Speaker. First nations are not in favour of time allocation and they are not in favour of Bill S-8.

I have a resolution here from the United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising in which they talk about the fact that first nations have the inherent right to self-government as recognized by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, which includes independent jurisdiction.

The resolution also says that the Conservative government has not consulted with them in order to pass these bills. The resolution says:

Therefore be it resolved that; the UCCMM First Nations categorically reject the following assimilation and termination Bills, Acts, policies and procedures used against our citizens;...Bill S-8 Safe Drinking Water...

Could the minister tell us why he is trying to pass this legislation as quickly as possible without consulting first nations and without the proper input of first nations and their members?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for his question. It is an important one.

As a matter of fact, from the former iteration of the bill to this one, we have incorporated some 10 amendments that had been requested by stakeholders and first nations across the country.

Over the last several months, as members may know, concerns have been raised by various stakeholders regarding the opt-in provision in Bill S-8 for self-governing first nations and those who have already concluded land claim agreements. Specifically, it was suggested that this provision could create jurisdictional challenges and impacts for ongoing and future land claim agreements, among other issues.

As a result, I will be recommending to the committee that will be studying this bill clause by clause that there be removal of this provision from the bill, which will be good news for the land claims coalition and for those self-governing nations.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill S-8—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the safe drinking water for first nations act would allow our government, in co-operation with first nations, to ensure safe access to drinking water and to ensure the effective treatment of waste water and the protection of sources of drinking water on first nation lands.

However, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-8, an act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his stream-of-consciousness therapy.

Our government, however, is very focused. Our top priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With that in mind, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate on the cornerstone item of our legislative agenda, which is Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We will continue this debate tomorrow.

Next Monday, May 6, will be the fourth day of second reading debate on this important job creation bill, and Tuesday May 7 will be the fifth and final day.

Once debate is concluded, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the substantive job creation measures in this bill.

On Wednesday, the House will debate Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. This will be the fourth time this bill is debated at second reading so it is my hope and expectation that this bill will come to a vote.

With the vote, there will be another clear choice before the House. Members will be voting to allow for national standards for on-reserve drinking water. This is a question of basic equality. I know the opposition voted against equality for women on reserves when it voted against Bill S-2, matrimonial property on reserves, but I hope they have stopped grasping at excuses to oppose equal treatment for first nations and will now support Bill S-8.

While I am speaking about aboriginal affairs, allow me to take the time to notify the House that I am designating, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Thursday, May 9, for consideration in committee of the whole all votes under Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

On Thursday, we will continue to advance the economic priority of our legislative agenda by debating Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, in the morning. Following question period on Thursday, May 9, we will continue Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading. I understand there is broad support for this bill, so I hope to see it pass swiftly. Then we can move on to other legislation, including: Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the coastal fisheries protection act; and bill S-14, the fighting foreign bribery act.

Finally, Friday, May 10 will be the seventh allotted day, which I understand will be for the NDP.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was Harold Macmillan who once said, “Events, my dear friend, events”. That is the great variable.

As we know, we have had many events and we were delighted that we were able to get Bill S-7 approved by this House this past week, in response to events.

Today, we will continue with debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.

It being Victims Week, we will follow up on this week's passage of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, with debate tomorrow on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.

Insofar as the government's agenda, there is actually a very significant cornerstone to that agenda; that is, of course, our economic action plan. Earlier this week, the House adopted a ways and means motion to allow for a bill implementing measures from economic action plan 2013. Our top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, so if a bill following on the ways and means motion were to be introduced before Wednesday, we would give that bill priority consideration for debate Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week.

In the interim, on Monday, we will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice and the support of Canada act. It is my hope that this debate will conclude on Monday so that we can have the third reading debate on that bill on Tuesday.

If we have the opportunity next week, we will continue the second reading debate of the not criminally responsible reform act. This is an important bill and I would hope that it will get to committee without delay.

The government will also give consideration to Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act at second reading; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act at report stage and third reading; Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading; and finally, Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I also note that out of the allocations in the main estimates for this, the ratio of operations to capital is actually, to me, quite positive. We're talking about $10 million for operating and $127 million in grants and capital. I'd say that was sort of indicating an investment in structural changes, which I think will benefit first nations well into the future.

I'd like to ask specifically, Minister, about Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which as you also mentioned is currently going through the House and is almost at second reading. We hope to see that here at committee soon.

Can you tell us how Bill S-8 will help provide access to safe drinking water, and specifically how it relates to the funds allocated?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Chair, first of all, let me say that I am pleased to be here today and honoured that the Prime Minister has appointed me to the role and responsibility of aboriginal affairs and northern development. As minister, of course, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chair, and all of your committee members in order to advance our, I'm sure, mutual desire to see healthier, more prosperous, and self-sufficient aboriginal communities across Canada.

As some of you may know, I had a limited but most exciting stint in this department back in the 1980s. I served as the minister of state for, in those days, Indian affairs and northern development, mainly in charge of the native economic development program. Coming back almost 20 years later—I was very young then—I am pleased to see and I acknowledge that much progress has been made since then from settling land claims and specific claims, to achieving self-government agreements, to increasing economic development both on an off reserve. There is clear evidence that aboriginal peoples are participating more fully in Canada's social and economic life. That said, however, I also acknowledge—the government knows and I know—that more critical work remains to be done.

Over the coming weeks, I will be meeting with aboriginal leaders and communities across the country, including aboriginal youth, to advance dialogue on our shared priorities. In my short tenure thus far, I have already had the opportunity to meet with a number of aboriginal partners, including the National Chief; Métis and Inuit leaders; and representatives from the Native Women's Association of Canada. I look forward to working together with all of our partners.

I want to assure you that our government’s commitment to creating jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity doesn't stop at the door of aboriginal communities or of first nations. We want aboriginals to take full advantage of all the economic opportunities that Canada has to offer. That is why we are taking action to address remaining obstacles and structural barriers that are preventing aboriginal people from achieving their full potential.

For example, we have heard from first nations who have been calling for improved education systems. That is a fundamental issue, one that I feel is key. We are responding to those calls, just as we are responding to calls to ensure access to safe drinking water on reserve. We are taking action.

But we are not only committed to making these structural reforms, we are also committed to supporting these reforms with the necessary resources, but in a way that is responsible, of course, as well as transparent, strategic and targeted. I believe that committee members will see that this commitment is made clear in my department’s 2013-14 main estimates and supplementary estimates (C) for fiscal 2012-13, which is what I am here to speak to you about today.

The 2013-14 main estimates, Mr. Chair, forecast departmental expenditures of approximately $8 billion. That's a net increase of $178 million, and is 2.3% above last year's main estimates.

That increase, at a time of economic uncertainty and fiscal prudence and of our commitment to Canadians to reduce the deficit, and eliminate the deficit, reflects our government's unwavering commitment to improving the quality of life for aboriginal people and northerners and to creating jobs and economic growth.

I'm sure you all know that last year's economic action plan included increased funding for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in several key areas over the coming year. This includes more money for the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and for the priorities we share with first nations, such as the first nations water and waste water action plan, first nations education, and other priorities. You can see this increased funding reflected in the main estimates.

Mr. Chair, I want to take this opportunity to maybe expand a bit on these items.

The main estimates include additional funds of $224.5 million for fiscal year 2013-14 to go towards the continued implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. This includes additional funding for claimants under the independent assessment process and the alternative dispute resolution and common experience payment program. It also includes funding for the administration and research required for the government to continue to fulfill its obligations under the agreement.

As you know, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement is court directed and agreed to by multiple parties, including legal counsel for former students, the Assembly of First Nations, and Inuit representatives. Our government, I can assure you, will continue to honour and respect the terms of the agreement.

The estimates also include $137.4 million for the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan. Our government and first nations have a shared goal of ensuring first nations have the same access to safe, clean drinking water in their communities as all other Canadians.

Access to safe drinking water, the effective treatment of wastewater and the protection of sources of drinking water in first nation communities are critical to ensuring the health and safety of first nations. You may remember that Economic Action Plan 2012 included $330.8 million over two years to help sustain progress made to build and renovate water infrastructure on reserve and to support the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality in first nation communities.

More specifically, this money is going towards training for operators of water and wastewater systems on reserve and capital investments targeted at the highest risk systems. And we are already seeing results. We have seen the number of high-risk water systems on reserve decrease by more than 8% and we have trained hundreds of operators through the Circuit Rider Training Program.

These resources are only one part of our government's comprehensive long-term plan to improve on-reserve water and waste water, which is founded on three pillars: one, enhanced capacity building and operation training; two, enforceable standards and protocols; and three, infrastructure investments.

Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, is currently before the House, and is a critical step toward ensuring that first nations have enforceable standards for safe drinking water on reserve. I hope that this bill will come before the committee soon.

The last area I'd like to expand upon is the $115 million for initiatives to improve first nations education, which is also included in the main estimates. Our government goal here is to provide first nations students with a quality education that provides them with the same opportunities and choices as other Canadian students. By improving the graduation rate, we will ensure that first nations students have the skills they need to pursue additional education, or enter the labour market and become full participants in a strong Canadian economy.

Economic action plan 2012 committed an additional $275 million over three years to support first nations elementary and secondary education. This included new resources to build and renovate schools on reserve, and to support early literacy programming and partnerships with provincial school systems.

We know that money is not the only answer. That is why we are committed to making the structural changes needed to improve literacy and graduation rates and to ensure students have safe and secure learning environments. All of that will help pave the way for the development of a First Nations Education Act. As you are aware, this project is currently the subject of intensive consultations across Canada. This legislation will put in place the structures and standards to support strong and accountable education systems on reserve.

We are committed to working with first nations parents, educators, leaders and others to have a First Nations Education Act in place by September 2014. It is an ambitious goal, but I truly believe that we can reach it. I hope committee members will support us in these efforts.

I cannot ignore the reality that my department, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, must demonstrate fiscal prudence. As you know, the department’s budget will be reduced by $240.1 million over three years. Of that amount, $160.6 million will be ongoing annual savings starting in 2014-15. We have achieved these savings by identifying departmental efficiencies and streamlining operations while protecting delivery of essential programs and services to first nations and northerners.

Supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year 2012-13 also contain key initiatives totalling $36.9 million. This includes $20.6 million to address urgent health and safety pressures on first nations communities, especially as they relate to evacuations in northern Manitoba and Ontario due to forest fires, recovery from flooding in Saskatchewan, and floods and storm surges in the Atlantic region under the emergency management assistance program.

There is $12.7 million for the urban aboriginal strategy, to reduce the barriers to urban aboriginal peoples' participation in the economy.

Mr. Chair, these investments and initiatives I've outlined today will contribute to the progress we are making in addressing issues facing northerners and aboriginal peoples in Canada, and will enable them to take advantage of all the opportunities Canada has to offer. Our plans support the partnerships, advance our legislative initiatives, and set the stage for continued progress. I'm confident they will drive progress on important issues of concern to aboriginal peoples, and indeed to our country as a whole.

If I want to give you a chance to ask questions, I better shut up. At this time, I'd be pleased to answer any questions that members of the committee might have on the content of these estimates.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on Motion M-400, which calls on the government to consider establishing a financial support program to help Canadians bring private residential sceptic systems up to standard.

The hon. member sees this as a means of protecting Canadian lakes, water quality and public health. Certainly, those are commendable goals, and our government is working hard to achieve them.

While I understand the good intentions with which the motion was put forward, the government will not be supporting Motion M-400. Since the regulation of sceptic systems is a provincial and territorial area of responsibility, we believe that the provinces and territories are best positioned to understand and respond to local issues of this nature.

Having said that, our government is doing its part to improve wastewater management and treatment. We have invested heavily in public wastewater infrastructure, providing approximately $1.8 billion since 2007. This funding has contributed to more than 1,200 wastewater projects across the country, and on an ongoing basis, we are providing municipalities with $2 billion a year through the gas tax fund, money that can be used to upgrade wastewater infrastructure through municipalities if they choose to do so.

The investment in the affordable housing framework announced by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for housing in July 2011 is another possible source of federal support. This framework provides for a combined investment of $1.4 billion over three years to reduce the number of Canadians in housing need.

Provinces and territories are responsible for program development and delivery, and they certainly have the capacity to direct funding to upgrade private sceptic systems if this is considered a priority by them.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s mortgage insurance can also help homeowners get funding to repair or replace their septic systems.

With mortgage insurance from CMHC, qualified homeowners can refinance their mortgages for up to 80% of the value of their home, and then use the resulting funds to make improvements to their plumbing or other systems.

I would also like to take the opportunity to comment on an area where the government has found an important role with respect to household septic systems. This role is in helping first nations to provide better water and waste water services on reserve.

Hon. members on both sides of the House will agree that the living conditions for many first nations communities are below those of other Canadians.

Working in partnership with first nations, our government is taking action on a number of fronts, including supporting first nations in operating their waste water and water systems on reserve. Each year our government provides approximately $197.5 million in water and waste water programs to first nation communities. This funding assists first nation chiefs and councils in their responsibility to plan and develop water and waste water systems on reserve. This is a significant investment, but we recognize there is more to be done to improve the health and quality of life for people in first nation communities.

Our government made a commitment to address on-reserve water and waste water issues on a priority basis, and subsequently released the “National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems--2009–2011”. We identified three key areas of action: enhanced capacity building and operator training, enforceable standards and protocols, and infrastructure investments. Progress has been made in each of these areas, and I am pleased to say that even bigger improvements lie ahead.

Canada's economic action plan 2012 provided for new investments of $330.8 million over two years to help first nations provide better water and waste water services to their residents. This investment, which is over and above the funding we provide annually, will sustain the progress that has been made to date in building and renovating water and waste water infrastructure on reserve. It will also support the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality in first nation communities. As a result of this planned investment, risk levels will be reduced and access to clean water on reserve will improve.

Analysis shows that 60% of the risk identified in annual performance inspections of water and waste water systems relate to systems operations, maintenance, operator training and certification, as well as record keeping and reporting. To improve results in these areas, during the first year of this plan $32 million will be invested in training for first nations, and an additional $47.7 million will be invested to support operations and maintenance. New investments will also be made to support the construction and renovation of water and waste water treatment facilities.

In year one, capital investments of $47 million will be prioritized to target high- and medium-risk systems in over 50 first nation communities. Canoe Lake in Saskatchewan, Tallcree First Nation in Alberta and Nazko First Nation in British Columbia are among the communities that will benefit from this funding.

Finally, Health Canada will support first nations with an investment of $27.4 million per year to build capacity, enhance monitoring, increase public awareness and review project proposals from a public health perspective. Chiefs and councils will continue to be responsible for public health measures such as issuing drinking water advisories to affected communities, communicating the information to residents and addressing drinking water quality challenges.

Once this two-year plan is fully implemented, our government will have invested approximately $3 billion between 2006 and 2014 to support first nation communities in managing their water and waste water infrastructure. Clearly the government attaches great importance to this issue. We are making the investments needed to achieve results.

Another way our government is taking action is by introducing legislation that will enable us to develop, with first nations, enforceable drinking water regulations and standards to be applied on reserve lands. As hon. members know, Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was introduced in the Senate last year. The proposed legislation is the product of discussions between the government and first nations on safe drinking water legislation and enforceable standards over the past five years. Bill S-8 has been approved by the Senate and is now awaiting second reading here in the House. I urge all members to support this meaningful legislation.

In closing, let me reiterate that the proposal from the hon. member would take the Government of Canada into an area of provincial and territorial responsibility. For this reason, Motion No. 400 will not be supported by the government. We will, however, continue to work co-operatively with federal and provincial governments and with first nations to protect public health, preserve the environment and improve the quality of life of Canadians. We will do so by continuing to focus our attention and investments in areas of federal responsibility where they can have the greatest impact.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. The member's motion calls for improved economic outcomes for first nations, Inuit and Métis, and a commitment on treaty implementation and meaningful consultation on legislation with aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I am proud of our government's record on improving the lives of aboriginal people in Canada. Since 2006, our government has made unprecedented investments that will make a concrete difference in the lives of aboriginal people, including skills training, housing on reserves, potable water, schools, treaty rights, protection of the rights of women and the resolution of land claims.

For example, we have built over 30 new schools on reserve and renovated more than 200 others. We have invested in a major way in safe drinking water systems. We have built over 10,000 new homes and renovated thousands more. We have increased funding for child and family services by 25%. We have legislated that the Canadian Human Rights Act will apply to first nation individuals living on reserves. This was a glaring discriminatory provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which we reversed, over the objections of the opposition.

We introduced legislation to improve the accountability of first nation governments to their people. We introduced legislation to create an open and transparent elections process, necessary for economic development. We have settled over 80 outstanding land claims, many of which had been languishing for 20 years in the hopper. We have invested in over 700 projects, linking aboriginals across Canada with job training and counselling services.

I have had a long history with first nations and have seen a lot of change over the years. I am very encouraged to see firsthand many examples of strong first nation leadership driving very positive change.

Aboriginal peoples represent the fastest growing population in Canada. Given the country's labour shortages and the proximity of first nation communities to resource development projects, there is a tremendous economic opportunity before us. That is why we have consistently invested in measures to improve aboriginal participation in the economy.

Like economic action plan 2012, economic action plan 2013 will be focused on jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit and Métis.

Finding ways to ensure that first nations can benefit from resource development is a priority. It is good for first nations, for Canada, for our Métis and for our Inuit. Our government is investing in measures that will help ensure that first nations are well-positioned to take advantage of these and other economic opportunities. For example, our government has invested in over 700 initiatives to link aboriginal people with job training, mentoring and other supports. We also invest more than $400 million annually in direct funding for aboriginal skills development and training.

My department's major projects and investment funds initiative has also contributed over $22 million to support aboriginal participation in 87 energy and resource projects, such as hydro, mining, renewable energy and forestry. These contributions have helped create over 400 jobs and levered just over $307 million from public and private debt and equity financing sources.

In addition to these investments, our government has worked to modernize legislation to allow first nations and aboriginal organizations to operate at the speed of business. Last year, our government introduced Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act to allow first nations community members access to the same basic financial information about their government and their elected officials available to all other Canadians.

More specifically, the bill would require first nation elected officials to publish their statements of remuneration and expenses as well as their audited consolidated financial statements. The bill would provide community members with the information required to make informed decisions about their leadership and to provide investors with the confidence they need to enter into financial partnerships with first nations.

Now that the legislation is before the Senate committee, we hope to see it passed into law very soon.

The first nations financial transparency act was driven by grassroots first nation members who were calling for greater accountability from their governments. Many of these people have suffered retribution, including intimidation and verbal and physical abuse, for having spoken in support of greater transparency and accountability.

Another important legislative initiative that would foster jobs and economic growth is Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, which includes the Nunavut planning and project assessment act and the Northwest Territories surface rights board act, along with related amendments to the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. Together, these measures would fulfill outstanding obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, as well as the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims agreements, and respond to calls for measures to streamline and improve regulatory processes in the north. The bill is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Amendments to the land designation sections of the Indian Act that comprised a portion of Bill C-45 would also create economic opportunities. These amendments would speed up the process for leasing lands for economic development purposes, while allowing first nations to maintain full ownership of their lands. As a result, it would provide greater flexibility for first nations to act on time-sensitive economic development opportunities. These amendments responded directly to first nations who had expressed frustration to me, to the standing committee and to other members with the overly complex and lengthy process of designating land, which was an impediment to investment opportunities.

I quote from Chief Shane Gottfriedson, chief of the Tk'emlúps Indian Band in British Columbia, speaking about these changes to the land designation process in Bill C-45. “[Before the changes] it was just horrific for us to try and do any sort of business within our territory”.

Chief Reginald Bellerose of the Muskowekwan First Nation in Saskatchewan also spoke in favour of the changes: “[Muskowekwan First Nation] recognizes the positive steps the federal government has made to assist First Nation communities to operate in a more efficient and commercial manner. Specifically, Bill C-45 provides for a more efficient land designation vote process”.

We have heard from first nations that they want to be able to move at the speed of business and we continue to work with willing partners to remove economic barriers to the success of first nation communities as they seek out opportunities to generate wealth for their communities and their members.

If further proof was needed that legislative action can speed economic development, I would like to point to my announcement just last week on new regulations under the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act that will allow the Kitimat natural gas facility on the Haisla First Nation's Bees Indian Reserve No. 6 to move forward. The Kitimat LNG facility will provide Canada's energy producers with a doorway to overseas markets. It will create well-paying jobs and economic growth opportunities for the Haisla First Nation and the entire northwest region of British Columbia.

We have also invested in modernizing the land management regimes for first nations so that they can unlock the potential of their lands and natural resources. This past month I announced that eight more first nations will soon be operating under the First Nations Land Management Act. These first nations have chosen freedom from 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act, which were holding them back from achieving their full economic potential. They now have power over their own reserve lands and resources so that they can take advantage of economic activities without wading through bureaucratic red tape.

This is in addition to 18 other first nations that I announced last January, making a total of 69 first nations that can now develop their own land codes, which will allow them to more quickly and effectively pursue economic opportunities and create jobs. Through these initiatives we are putting in place the building blocks for future success. These foundational pieces will help prepare communities to take advantage of new economic opportunities available to them.

We are a business-like government. We like to obtain concrete results. We are making unprecedented investments in the spirit of partnership and we recognize historical grievances. This is why we have settled outstanding land claims that have been long languishing.

The government is committed to continue building on the progress we have made to improve living conditions for first nations and to create jobs and economic opportunities in their communities. Specifically, we are committed to expediting comprehensive claims and treaty implementation. We all recognize that while much progress has been made, more work remains to be done. We are taking steps to improve land claim and self-government negotiation processes. This includes identifying alternatives to negotiations that meet the interests of the parties as well as practical measures to make sure that first nations are ready and able to fully engage and participate in the process.

In some cases there are alternatives to comprehensive claims and we are good with that. For example, the Haisla, the Squamish First Nation and Westbank First Nation are not specifically interested in pursuing treaties. They realize there are other measures that can and have been put in place, which are expediting the conditions for economic prosperity for their communities. We are also involved currently in self-government negotiations on a number of historic treaties. An example of that is the Sioux Valley Dakota First Nation in Manitoba, where we anticipate imminently the conclusion of self-government negotiations.

There is a clear link between the strength of the relationship and the economic prosperity of first nations and all Canadians. Protection of aboriginal treaty rights and consultations with aboriginals are enshrined in our laws, which have been passed by this Parliament. This government fully respects our duty to consult. That is why we have conducted more than 5,000 consultations annually. As minister, I have visited over 50 first nation communities since 2010 and I have had hundreds of productive meetings with first nation chiefs, councillors and community members across Canada.

This government also undertook unprecedented consultations on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. We are currently in the midst of intensive consultations with first nation leaders, teachers, students and educators in the development of a first nation education act. I would like to highlight some of the important work that has been done on the development of a first nation education act.

In economic action plan 2012, our government committed to work with willing partners to establish a first nation education act that will establish the structures and standards to support strong and accountable education systems on reserve. Through intense consultations, we have committed to work with willing partners to have the legislation in place by September 2014. We are determined to follow through on this commitment.

First nation students are the only children in Canada whose education system is not governed by legislation. Our government, unlike previous governments, is committed to bringing forward such legislation. The legislation would provide the modern framework necessary to build standards and structures, strengthen governance and accountability, and provide the mechanism for stable, predictable and sustainable funding.

I would like to add that, as recently as yesterday, I met with the first nation education steering committee in British Columbia. We have other examples, such as Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey in Nova Scotia, where these parameters are already in place. An important part of our consultation is to meet with first nation authorities that have already done much work in this area and are obtaining results of the kind that are setting a great example.

We are making other investments. We have also invested an additional $100 million over three years to help ensure readiness for the new education system to be put in place by September 2014. We committed an incremental $175 million, on top of the $200 million that we spend on an annual basis, to new school projects. It is unfortunate that the member who brought forward today's motion chose to vote against these investments in first nation education.

This past December I announced the launch of intensive face-to-face consultation with first nation parents, students, leaders, educators and others on the initiative. The first in a series of sessions began in Halifax last week. The second session will be in Saskatoon next week.

I want to state very clearly that there is no legislation drafted. The purpose of these ongoing consultations is to get views and feedback so that legislation can be drafted. The input gathered during consultations will help shape the drafting of the legislation. Once drafted, the proposed legislation will be shared with every first nation across Canada, as well as with provincial governments and other stakeholders for feedback.

Modern land claims and self-government agreements can also provide a path to self-sufficiency and unlock economic opportunities. We are working in partnership with first nations on a new results-based approach to treaty and self-government negotiations to achieve more treaties in less time so that aboriginal communities can begin to unlock economic opportunities that can be realized through treaties.

Under the new approach, our government will focus its resources on tables with the greatest potential for success to bring treaties to fruition. The chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission is strongly supportive of our new approach, saying that she is encouraged our government is accelerating progress. We have heard first nations' concerns and we are delivering necessary change. It is also clear that there are options to the treaty process. Our goal is to achieve treaties where we can and to develop options to treaties where we cannot.

I will conclude by saying that moving forward will take time and dedicated effort from all parties. We are fully committed to taking further steps along this journey. We will continue to focus on real structural reforms and increasing the effectiveness of long-term investments.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

That's a very good question.

From 2006 to 2014 we will have invested more than $3 billion in this project. We need Bill S-8. This is why we introduced Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. As we build capacity in first nations and as we continue to improve everywhere, we need national standards, or regionally sensitive standards but national legislation, to deal with all this.

We will get to a steady state on required investment at some point. I'm not sure when that will be. We'll obviously need another pretty comprehensive assessment at some point.

[Michael Wernick]

It is per year for each of two years. That's a two-year extension of the level of activity.

It will be a slight fall-off—I'm sure you've done the math—because there was a little extra injection of resources due to the stimulus package in Canada's economic action plan. If you follow the year-over-year numbers, the annual investments follow a pattern. If I start in 2008-09, it is $308 million. Then you get a peak, because of the stimulus package, of $380 million and $395 million. It drops down to $311 million and goes up to $330 million. I'll have to leave the numbers with you. That's the sort of zone of investment we're in.

The water strategy the government has been pursuing since 2007 has three parts to it, and I know that you're very familiar with this. This is for other members. One part clearly is investing in infrastructure. You need the plants for water and waste water. The second part is training of operators. We all know the stories of Walkerton and Prince Albert and so on. There are things that need to be done. The third pillar, in the government's view, is enforceable standards, and that's why Bill S-8 is before Parliament.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the privilege of talking about an issue as important as the one addressed in Bill C-428. I believe that this bill is important because it tackles the horrible Indian Act of 1876. There can be no doubt that this bill is one of Canada's most archaic colonial legacies. That is why I commend the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River on his initiative. However, it is not enough. It is too little, too late. The Conservative government should consider a much farther-reaching rewrite of the Indian Act and a much more open process.

As a New Democrat, I believe that a complete overhaul of this cursed bill should be led by aboriginals. If the changes are imposed unilaterally, then what, really, has changed? That is why Bill C-428 seems inappropriate.

I will explain why this bill is not likely to go down in history. I do not claim to have a plan to make up for 136 years of colonialism, but I can say that ideally, new legislation should be drafted in collaboration with aboriginals, be introduced by the government and honour the goals of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Because Bill C-428 does not satisfy any of these conditions, I cannot support it.

I want to begin by pointing out that the goal of the 1876 act was the assimilation of all aboriginals and their forced integration into what was then a fledgling Canadian society. When I visit Manawan, people there are still speaking Atikamekw in 2012. In that respect, the act failed. It also includes many provisions that make life difficult for aboriginals. The government will have to do better than a private member's bill to fix it.

In 1969, the Liberal Party tried to get rid of the act in order to integrate aboriginals into Canadian society. That was supposed to happen without compensation, without special status, and with no respect for treaties signed in the past. As one, aboriginals rejected the idea, but that does not mean they wanted to keep the Indian Act. Quite the contrary.

In their red paper, aboriginals stated that it was neither possible nor desirable to abolish the Indian Act. They said that a review of the act was critical, but that it should not happen until treaty issues were resolved. Some 45 years later, that issue is still outstanding.

Other attempts were explored in this House. In 1987, a list was made of discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act, and this led to a bill. Later, in 2003, the Liberals introduced Bill C-7, which, once again, was heavily criticized by first nations. The Conservatives are now bringing forward Bill C-428, a private member's bill, which seems just as irrelevant as other attempts.

In the words of Einstein, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In my opinion, this quote points to what is clearly lacking in Bill C-428: a different approach. Perhaps this flaw is the reason why there is very little support for the bill outside the Conservative caucus. The chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, said that this bill is along the same lines as the policy espoused in the 1969 white paper.

Had the Conservatives listened to Mr. Atleo, they would have understood that what to do with aboriginals is no longer the question. In the 21st century, the question is: what do aboriginals want to do with us?

Bill C-428, which the Assembly of First Nations has said came out of nowhere, does not reflect the current reality. During the Crown–First Nations Gathering, the Conservative Prime Minister spoke at length about how his government would work with the first nations.

Aboriginal peoples were not consulted about Bill C-428, or about Bill C-27 or Bill S-8. When the government promises something—and especially something so important—it must follow through. It is shameful to see that this government is not keeping its own promises.

Speaking of broken promises, the government committed to removing the residential school provisions from the Indian Act. We can see that the government preferred to hide the clause in a private member's bill. The NDP thinks that something so important should come from the government, and with apologies, no less. The government must take responsibility and come up with a real, serious solution to replace the Indian Act.

Bill C-428 contains some clauses that seem to be chosen at random, when they are not downright negative. For example, the elimination of the provisions dealing with wills and estates could put aboriginal people in a very frustrating legal void. Does the bill's sponsor understand its implications?

Finally, we must recognize that the living conditions of aboriginal people are getting worse all the time. While the first nations communities are experiencing an ongoing demographic boom, their social services budgets are increasing by only 2% a year, thanks to the Liberals. The fact that the social services budgets for other Canadians are increasing by 6% a year does not seem to bother the government at all.

Malnutrition and education problems are hitting first nations communities hard. I am afraid that the Prime Minister will have to do more than give a medal to Justin Bieber to make young aboriginals forget about this sad reality. When the government decides to really tackle the problems resulting from the Indian Act, I will be there.

Furthermore, I expect that the proposed measure will be very much in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This declaration, which Canada ignorantly refused to support, recognizes the specific needs of aboriginal people. It recognizes their right to be consulted about the use of resources on their land. Do we not owe at least that to those who played key roles in our history and the development of our economy?

If the government does not change its attitude toward the first nations, they will understand that the NDP is the only party that can offer them a truly open consultation process. We want to help them to govern themselves. Other Canadians need to know that the excellent social services they receive must also be provided to aboriginal people, in a spirit of sharing and recognition.

The Indian Act needs to be revised, but not without real consultation, clear objectives and a detailed plan of steps to follow. Unfortunately, Bill C-428 does not meet any of these criteria.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that Canada's Auditor General has actually been talking, for a while now, about the excessive amount of paperwork in terms of first nations having to report. In fact, the Auditor General's office has been calling on the government to take action to reduce unnecessary first nation reporting requirements.

When we take a look at Bill S-8, which should have had a great deal of discussion prior to its introduction, or even its drafting, one could question whether or not the government is fair in saying that it will not increase reporting requirements. We know Bill S-8 is going to do nothing to address that particular issue of reduction.

I wonder if the member of Parliament would like to provide comment on that important issue, which the Auditor General has raised.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

Before I get into the bill, the title of it would have one believe that the Conservatives are actually going to do something about safe drinking water for first nations. It uses the word “respecting”. To me, respect is listening to the very people that this legislation is going to impact. Respect is to listen to their concerns and implement some resolutions to those concerns as part of the solution for creating a better environment for clean water and waste water systems for first nations. This bill would not do any of that.

We have heard debate in the House on this bill, we have heard testimony in committee and we have heard from experts that the government is not listening to first nations. It has, in fact, failed to consult the very people who are going to be impacted by this particular legislation. The word “respecting” is very misleading, because the government is not respecting the very people who would be impacted by this legislation.

We in the House all agree on the need for clean water and water systems accessible to first nations. A fundamental right of Canadians is to have access to free and clean drinking water. In fact, after Russia and Brazil, we have the third largest supply of clean water in the world. Yet first nations are having difficulty accessing clean and safe water for their drinking needs, and that is not acceptable to Canadians. In this day and age, we need to provide clean water for first nations. It is doable. We have heard in the House that we can provide safe, clean water, but it needs a commitment from the government to invest in first nations so they have access to clean water.

This issue of clean water has been boiling for the last 10 or 15 years, as far as I know. The Liberals tried to fix it and I know the Conservatives have tried a piecemeal strategy to address the needs of first nations, but over a period of time they have failed again and again because there was no substance in previous bills, or even this one, to help them get clean water. In fact, this particular bill does not provide the investment for first nations to build the infrastructure needed for access to clean water.

Having clean water is a fundamental right. Not only that, but it helps first nations build their economy and improves their health. If they do not have good health, it is going to impact the economy. If the Conservatives are truly worried about building an economy and providing jobs to first nations youth, it is important for government to step up to the plate. It has been saying for many years that there is going to be clean water for first nations, but their words are hollow.

All this legislation would do is provide for a regulations framework. That is all it would do. It would not provide the infrastructure or investment that is needed. All it would do is provide for additional regulations that will be put on first nations. The government did not even consult first nations, the very people who are going to be impacted by this legislation. In order to put a system in place that provides clean water for first nations, it is very important to consult those people. Yet the Conservatives failed to do that.

The Prime Minister talked about building a new relationship with the first nations. What I believe he meant was to consult with first nations. It is our duty to consult first nations when bringing in legislation that would impact them. I believe his words were hollow when he said that we would build a new nation by consulting first nations. Clearly, this legislation would not do that at all.

Not only do we need infrastructure and additional investments in our communities to provide them with clean water, but also for waste water that ends up in our lakes and streams. The government is focused on cutting the very regulations that help protect our lakes, rivers and oceans. Not only is it not providing the infrastructure needed to treat the waste water that would be released into our lakes and rivers, it is gutting the environmental regulations that we have in place to ensure that Canadians across the country have adequate access to clean safe water.

Over the years, we have seen the numbers. Hundreds of first nations communities across the country have been under boil water advisories. In Ottawa and back in Surrey, we take it for granted that we can turn on the tap and drink the water. However, hundreds of communities across the country do not have access to clean water and are under a Health Canada boil water advisory. This is happening in the 21st century. We are trying to build that new relationship that the Prime Minister so often talks about but the government is not delivering on its promises of trying to help the first nations.

Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen legislation brought in by the government, whether it is the transparency act or matrimonial land rights, without any consultation with the first nations people. The courts have told us that it is our fiduciary duty to consult with first nations on any legislation brought into the House that concerns them. We need to hear their views. Not only must we consult with first nations, we must also work with them toward addressing the concerns that they have brought forward.

This is a hollow bill that fails to address the very things that need to be addressed. Over and over again, the Conservatives are failing to address the very needs of the first nations. They never talk about housing or education for our young people. They never talk about investing in young people so that the cycle of poverty in our first nations can be broken.

The government talks about spending millions of dollars and investing in first nations but its own report called upon the government to implement a strategy over a period of time wherein additional investments into drinking water for first nations would take place over 10 years. The government has not only failed Canadians but also first nations by not investing and providing the infrastructure that is needed for clean water and waste water management. The bill would not address any of the concerns that the first nations have brought forward, and Canadians are aware of some of those issues as well.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things my colleague mentioned that really ring true.

I mentioned the Kashechewan First Nation crisis from 2005. My community of Sudbury really stepped up and supported many of the people who were evacuated from that community. In Sudbury we all learned a very valuable lesson that day, that not everyone has access to the drinking water and the wastewater systems we take for granted.

As I mentioned, those young kids and adults turning the tap on and off really burned an image into my mind that we had to stop just talking about this. We need to make the investments in infrastructure to ensure that we are supporting our first nation communities.

I do not believe Bill S-8 would address this in the way that we need to support our first nation communities. We need to fix this. We need to fix it now and I think we have the opportunity to do so, but it is not through Bill S-8.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on the member's point, it is critically important that families have access to clean running water.

The vast majority of Canadians, 95% plus, as was pointed out, can go to the kitchen and turn on the faucet or go to the washroom, and whether with the toilet or the bathtub, they can turn on the taps and the water will flow.

A good percentage of our population would be surprised that there are hundreds, and actually well into the thousands, of people residing here in Canada who do not have that access to clean running water. It is one of the reasons that politicians tend to want to talk about it. We passed the resolution.

The leader of the Liberal Party introduced a motion last November with all-party support, pointing out the specific situation on reserves and calling on the government to work with first nations leaders to resolve the issue, because a good percentage of those who do not have clean running water live on reserve. There was all-party support for that motion, with the government actually supporting it.

When we look at priorities in meeting the suggestions in that motion, does Bill S-8 really do the job that is necessary?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-8, an act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands. Specifically, Bill S-8 would provide for federal regulations to govern drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in first nation communities. These regulations would set out new criteria regarding provisions including: the training and certification of operators of drinking and waste water systems; source water protection; the location, design, construction, modification, maintenance, operation and decommissioning of drinking water systems and waste water systems; drinking water distribution by truck; the collection and treatment of waste water; the monitoring, sampling and testing of waste water and the reporting of test results; and the handling, use and disposal of products of waste water treatment.

As an elected representative from northern Ontario, I recognize the importance of ensuring that first nation communities have access to clean drinking water. I am certain that there is not a member of the House who would oppose the goal of ensuring this basic right.

I spoke about it earlier to my colleague from Welland. We all remember the crisis in Kashechewan First Nation in 2005, when the community was forced to evacuate due to a contaminated water crisis that left some community members extremely sick and stranded others in communities such as Sudbury for an extended period of time.

I talked about my previous role as the executive director of the United Way and there were many great organizations in Sudbury that provided support to the first nations people from Kashechewan. I had the opportunity to meet some of the families who were staying in a hotel in Lively. The amazement of teenagers, children and even the adults who were there, turning the water taps on and off, is something that has burned into my brain because they had never had that opportunity before. To see them sit there and drink a glass of water out of the taps, it made me think how we take our drinking water for granted. However, in a country like Canada, we need to ensure that our first nations have those same standards.

Unfortunately, although it is one of the most egregious examples of the contaminated drinking water, the case of Kashechewan First Nation is not an isolated incident. Rather, it is part of a systemic problem that affects first nation communities right across Canada. In fact, Health Canada has reported that as of October 31, 2011 there were 124 first nation communities across Canada under a drinking water advisory. These are often issued in remote or isolated northern communities. From my perspective, this is unacceptable in a country with as much wealth as Canada. This is reinforced by the fact that many of these communities are situated in close proximity to resource development projects that net huge gains to mining companies and the government through tax revenues, but often do not provide any assistance to communities living within arm's reach of these projects.

Although ensuring access to clean drinking water for first nation communities is a laudable objective, I am afraid that the legislation would leave much to be desired in terms of the process to achieve the desired outcome. For instance, the regulations put forward under Bill S-8 may incorporate provincial regulations governing drinking and waste water in first nation communities, thereby overriding the regulations set out in the bill. Here, the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations expressed concern about using provincial regulations since that would result in a patchwork of regulations that would lead to some first nations having more stringent standards than others. Obviously, this would be inherently problematic.

If the intent would be to ensure equitable access to clean drinking water, then implementing a patchwork system, which would have different thresholds for provinces, runs counter to what the legislation would try to achieve. Put simply, a provincial regime of regulation does not do enough to protect first nation communities and appears to be a derogation of the federal government's responsibility to provide basic services to first nation communities.

The derogation of responsibility is underscored by the component of Bill S-8 limiting the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of their duties under the regulations. As the federal government is meant to be the primary provider of services to first nation communities, it seems odd that the legislation is attempting to limit the liability of the federal government in situations where it has failed to properly address its constitutional mandate. If the government actually believed that the regulations provided for in the legislation alone would ensure equitable access to safe drinking water in first nation communities, then why is there a need to limit the government's liability when there is a failure in this regard?

This bring us to the most problematic aspect of the paternalistic approach that the Conservatives continue to take when providing services to first nation communities. The crux of the problem with the legislation is that the government thinks that regulation alone will solve the water crisis in first nation communities, yet we know this is not true. In addition to a regulatory overhaul, these communities require crucial investments in human resources and physical infrastructure, including drinking water and sewage systems, and adequate housing.

Supporting this call for increased funding is Dr. Harry Swain, chair of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations. Dr. Swain told the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, in 2007:

This is not, in other words, one of those problems in Aboriginal Canada that will persist for ever and ever and ever. This is one that can be solved and it can be solved with the application of a good chunk of money for a limited period of time.

Further, in 2011, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada commissioned an independent assessment on first nation water and waste water systems. The report clearly states that a significant financial commitment to infrastructure development will be necessary, and that it will cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to ensure the needs of first nation communities regarding water and waste water systems are met. Yet, while the department has called for substantive investments to improve water and waste water systems in first nation communities, the Conservative government has only contributed to these improvements by committing $330 million over two years in 2010 and nothing in 2011.

I would challenge my Conservative colleagues on this shortfall, and although I do expect the inevitable finger-wagging and shouts, I would like to point out that a proactive approach with more substantive upfront investments in clean drinking water would likely be more cost effective than taking a reactive approach in which the government is forced to respond to an urgent public health crisis resulting from the failure to make these investments.

As is most often the case, the Conservative government continues to take a penny-wise and pound foolish approach, which fails to take the cost savings of pursuing a proactive approach into account when making the always difficult choices about what to prioritize in terms of government spending.

In summation, New Democrats agree that the poor standards of water systems in first nation communities are hampering people's health and well-being. It is also causing economic hardships for people living in these communities. This is not a difficult problem to solve. It just requires the political will and necessary investments to get us where we need to be.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on safe drinking water for first nations.

As someone who in a previous career had some sense of responsibility for drinking water facilities in a municipality, I find it incredulous that in this day and age we have communities of people across our nation who do not have clean, safe drinking water, running water or waste water facilities that nearly everyone else in the country takes for granted. These are not people who are living in a cabin for two weeks and draw a pail of water from the closest river or lake because they are looking for the great outdoor experience, if one could put it that way. Rather these are folks who live their daily lives without clean, safe drinking water.

My friend across the way from Medicine Hat, who I like immensely, talked about the fact that the government deserves some credit with respect to spending $3 billion since 2005-06 on safe drinking water for first nations. It did. The difficulty is that there are still 124 first nations communities across this vast nation that still do not have any safe drinking water, not 124 individual homes or individuals. It is not a question of people living in homes inside these communities who in a pinch can go to their neighbours to get some water. They do not have any. That cries out for action.

If it was the case that 124 non-first nations communities across this great land did not have safe drinking water, there would be a heck of a lot of folks not sitting in municipal office for very long since it is the purview of municipalities across the nation, outside of first nations, to govern the safety of the water systems, whether it be for drinking water or waste water.

Clearly this requires some investment. As my colleagues have pointed out, it was reported back to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which commissioned the report that was done in 2011, that there was a financial commitment needed in infrastructure beyond what had already been done. Therefore, it is all well and good for the Conservatives to say that they have done that, which is fair, because some work has already been done, but it is not finished. Clearly, the report said that an additional $4.7 billion over the next 10 years was needed to ensure that first nations communities had water and waste water systems that were up to date.

Clearly, the needs with respect to safe drinking water for first nations are not being met, unlike our needs here. Whenever we simply hold up our hand or glass, the page delivers a glass of clean drinking water, and I am grateful to the page for bringing that. We have no issue getting clean drinking water. In fact, it is almost instantaneous. Yet when first nations look for clean drinking water, it perhaps another one, five or ten years, or perhaps not in their lifetime, depending how old they are, before they can go to the kitchen, turn on the tap and drink the water.

That is somewhat incomprehensible for most of us because of where we live. The federal government must know how wrong that is since it has a treaty obligation to ensure that first nations actually get safe drinking water and a waste water system that adequately takes care of all of that grey water that needs to be disposed of and handled correctly so it does not end up polluting a river that people draw water from.

It would seem that we need to start thinking about how to correct this injustice, because it truly is an injustice of a magnitude that I think a lot of us have not turned our minds to. Perhaps that is the problem with this legislation. Perhaps what happened is one did not turn one's mind, when the legislation was drawn, to not just the complexity of it but the magnitude of it, and recognizing that, because of the complexity and the magnitude, it will require funding that is greater than what is offered by the government today.

Ultimately, all of us deserve to have clean potable drinking water and a waste water system that is effective to ensure that our kids are not sick and that our grandparents do not drink bad water because they did not boil it sufficiently. The number of boil water advisories across first nations is another unfathomable statistic.

In my community many years ago, when I was deputy mayor and acting mayor, I received a phone call, which is every mayor's worst nightmare, other than Rob Ford being tossed out by the courts, I suppose. The worst nightmare, other than the death of an employee, clearly, is from the chief engineer of the water system saying that he had just run some tests and it might be necessary to issue a boil water advisory, and that, by the way, as the acting mayor, I would need to go on the radio and make the announcement. If that does not set fear in the heart of an acting mayor, I do not know what else would. Forgetting one's anniversary might be an issue but I leave that to those who have been married for a longer time and who had forgotten an anniversary.

When that happened to me as the acting mayor, I was told that a couple more tests would be run and then I would be called back. I crossed every finger and toe I had, my arms and legs to boot, hoping that the call back from the chief engineer from the water system would be that it was okay, that it was just a bad test, that the testing procedure had failed, that it was a contaminated bottle, that they had retested three times, that everything was good and that we were in the clear.

Fortunately for me, that was the case and I did not have to go on the radio and tell the town to boil water and to boil it for the next couple of weeks until we had cleaned and flushed the entire system. That is what would have had to be done.

We do not have systems here. This is not a question of saying, “Oh, by the way, we will just flush the system out, clean it out and we will go again”. It does not exist in these communities. That is why the extent of the infrastructure money required is as high as it is. I am sure the government side is saying that it is a lot of money. The $4.7 billion investment over the next 10 years is a substantial investment but it is the correct investment. It is a just investment. It is an investment we expect in our communities to the point where we actually have it. We live in communities that expect to have good, safe drinking water.

Here in Ottawa, which provides the drinking water for most of us here, it is safe drinking water, as it is across many of the communities. This is a right we expect and, in fact, take for granted. We turn on the tap, fill up the glass or the kettle to make some tea or coffee and we drink the glass of water or give it to the grandson, son or daughter, mom or whomever, knowing it is perfectly safe, and it is.

Now we must think about the first nations people. In the summer, when it is warm and their children are asking for a glass of water, the parents need to think about whether they have boiled any water lately and, if not, will need to boil some now. The children are thinking about whether they really need to do that because they are at an age where they are precocious little things. Instead, they get their own water and now they are ill because we did not do what we needed to do, which was provide a system that provided safe drinking water in the first place.

It is our responsibility for clean water because it is still under the act for us to have those negotiations. That leads me to the second piece of the legislation when first nations are saying to us that we have an obligation to talk to them about how we would implement these systems under treaty rights. It behooves us if that is the case.

I watched intently earlier this year when the first nations came to the Hill. The Prime Minister met with them, as did the minister and the parliamentary secretary. They talked about going forward with a new spirit of co-operation, dialogue, respect and understanding of our two nations. That is admirable but it is only words if that is all it becomes because here is the test. It is a fundamental test of people, not just first nations people but people in general, to expect to have safe drinking water and a waste water system that is effective and keeps them from getting ill.

When we happen to have that jurisdiction, we then have the responsibility to talk to them under treaty rights, ask them how they want to do this and tell then that we will be a funder of it. That is our obligation and responsibility. We should do that. However, we have an obligation to talk to them about it.

One of the things I found as I researched this piece, not being an expert on first nation treaties, is that it says that any abrogation or derogation from those aboriginal and treaty rights, any infringement of those rights, must be justified in accordance with the test for justifiable infringement enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada. What do they include? They include whether a measure interferes with a preferred means of exercising a right, whether there has been as little infringement as possible in order to effect the desired results, whether in a situation of expropriation fair compensation is available and whether the aboriginal group in question has been consulted with respect to the measures being implemented.

When we look at the regulation part of Bill S-8, rather than being discussed with first nations and coming to agreement with first nations, it defers to provincial regulation. No one is saying those regulations are bad, albeit in Ontario we had to change our regulations after the Mike Harris debacle of Walkerton. I have seen the regulations but they actually have not been implemented in the province yet. For those who have not read them, I could provide members with a link to the website because it will probably take members about a month and a half to read them all. Even those regulations, if implemented, will put about 40% of the water systems in the province of Ontario out of business because there are not enough qualified people to meet the standards under the regulations, let alone if we imposed that on first nations across the country.

What first nations were telling to us was that we came to them with that spirit in the early part of the year but they wanted to know what happened to the consultation process when it came to the bill. What we know is that there was none.

I am surely not a legal expert, never having been a lawyer. I am not sure being a jury foreperson makes me be a legal expert but I will make a stab at it. In one of the Supreme Court's justifications, it says that whether the aboriginal group in question has been consulted with respect to the measures being implemented would be an allowable piece to let them out from underneath that. We know from the first nations and chiefs across the country that they were not consulted. That being the case, then it would seem that this is not a justifiable exemption in the sense of putting it aside and not talking to them.

It may have been well-intentioned from the minister's side when the legislation was put together to say that since the provinces have good regulations for water we should just use those. The minister should have sat down with the first nations and bargained under the treaty rights. He should have asked them what they thought about the provinces' regulations, which are pretty good and stringent, and that if the federal government provided the essential resources, the money, would they like to use the provincial standards. They may have agreed but we will never know because they were not asked. One should never assume that the answer to a question is yes if one has not asked the question. More important, one needs to discuss the issue because that is an obligation. Unfortunately, we did not do that in this case and that is what the first nations are telling us.

Here we are, at the end of 2012, albeit only a year since the last report was done, where we have 1,880 first nation homes with no water service. There is no such thing as opening the tap, filling a glass and drinking, safe or otherwise, because there is no water in the house. We know there are 1,777 homes that have no waste water. Not to try to be overly colourful, but that really means they have to bucket, because when it is -30° outside one uses the bucket. No one goes outside to the outhouse even if one has an outhouse.

The bill needs some real work. It needs to address the issues that first nations have identified. More so, it needs to address the report that the department commissioned. It received the report which outlined for the department where it needed to go and what it needed to do. Therefore, it was not a question of not being sure what to put in it. The department did its homework and found out was needed but it did not provide a solution. The solution was outlined in the report but it chose to ignore its own report that showed the path to fix the issue that has been here for a long time. If we go back to the nineties we see that 25% of the homes in first nations the drinking water issue was quite reprehensible. By 2001-02, it was 75% homes. It had actually become worse.

The present government was not in power then. It has made a stab at making it better but it could have fixed it if it had followed the report. The report outlined how to do that but the government chose not to. That is what this side takes great umbrage with. It is not the official opposition saying that the government should spend the money. We are simply saying that this is what the report said is the fix. However, first and foremost, it said to speak to the first nation leaders and ask them if this is the fix that they require and want so that in the end they will say how we can fix this issue together.

Would that not be a wonderful result if, at the end of the day, the government could say a few years from now that it fixed this issue? Finally, a Canadian government that said it would fix it and you could stand up and take the congratulations along with first nation leaders for accomplishing it together. That would have been a great feather in your cap but, unfortunately, you let it slide away.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's raising such important points, in terms of Bill S-8, but more generally the extremely problematic trend the Conservatives have been applying when it comes to downloading critical services onto other jurisdictions without the kinds of supports necessary. It is interesting to hear the government take that approach in various different areas.

We have seen from before that downloading often leads to serious problems, a lack of equality of service and in many cases a phasing out of the service entirely. I can speak to the fact that airports and even the Port of Churchill in my riding have been downloaded onto other jurisdictions and also private entities and we have seen the quality of service suffer as a result of that.

When we are talking, though, about something as critical as safe drinking water, there is no room to gamble with this. It is clear that proper consultation needs to take place. The figures have been made clear as to what kind of investments are needed in order for first nations to have basic safe drinking water. How can we expect first nations young people to excel in school or go on to employment opportunities when they do not have clean water to drink, when they do not have water to wash their hands, when there are not adequate sewage systems available? That is the kind of fundamental piece we are talking about here, not some pie-in-the-sky luxury but basic safe drinking water.

The fact that we are talking about this in 2012, almost 2013, is absolutely shameful. We on this side demand that the federal government step up to its fiduciary obligations, consult with first nations and make the investments that are needed to ensure that all first nations have access to safe drinking water.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was very clear in her excellent speech that on any legislation that needs to be brought forward in the House, the people who will be affected should be consulted. Clearly, that has not been the case with Bill S-8.

In legislation that has come from the government in the last number of weeks in regard to our first nations, about transparency, about land rights, we have seen a downloading of responsibilities to the first nations, but yet there is no investment, there are no resources attached to it.

We have seen the government downloading issues to the provinces, whether it is health care or other responsibilities on which traditionally the federal government has taken a leadership role.

Conservatives talk about investing in our young people. My colleague talked about investing in our aboriginal young people who are the largest young population in our country. Yet we see no investment in housing or in education. Could the member talk about those?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to speak to such an important piece of legislation that will have a direct impact on my constituency of Churchill in northern Manitoba.

I have the honour of representing 33 first nations in northern Manitoba. Many of these first nations have tremendous opportunity. They have the youngest population in Canada. The young people on these first nations are looking toward training and education, opportunities in the job market, the ability to have families and the opportunity to contribute to their communities in all sorts of ways. However, along with these opportunities are some significant barriers and none perhaps is more entrenched than the lack of access to safe drinking water, which a number of the first nations that I represent face. It is obviously a barrier that affects their day-to-day lives in a very real way. It is not a question of comfort; it is a question of basic health.

Aboriginal people as a whole in Canada share a lower life expectancy than non-aboriginal people. I think we would all agree that the fact that first nations people live less than everyone else is shameful in a country as wealthy as Canada. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why that is the case. One of the indicators is the lack of access to basic rights, including the right to safe drinking water and the use of safe water systems. That is very much the case with respect to some of the first nations that I represent. I have seen it first-hand.

I want to share the experience of the Island Lake first nations. It is a group of four first nations located on the east side of Lake Winnipeg close to the Ontario border. The Oji-Cree people live there in the communities of Garden Hill, St. Theresa Point, Wasagamack and Red Sucker Lake. These first nations are isolated in that they do not have a road that they can use year round to access their communities. People must depend on the ice roads to get in and out at an affordable cost. The only other option is flying in and out, which is completely out of the reach of the average resident of these communities. It is often only used at the eleventh hour when people either need to see a doctor or need medevac because of an unfortunate urgent incident.

These communities face some of the highest levels of water insecurity. I had the opportunity to visit these communities on many occasions. I even drove on winter roads. The lack of access to safe drinking water is one issue that has come up time and time again.

I also had the opportunity to visit St. Theresa Point during the H1N1 outbreak, which impacted the Island Lake first nations disproportionately. Many medical professionals indicated that the number one reason why more people on Island Lake were impacted by H1N1, and by impacted I mean sent to emergency wards in Winnipeg and other communities, is that they did not have access to safe drinking water. What was so disturbing and disgusting at the time was the federal government's slow reaction to the demands for hand sanitizer and a long-term investment in water infrastructure, when it was so clearly linked to the serious health implications that we were seeing.

Shortly after that the federal government made some basic commitments to the Island Lake first nations. I remember being in Garden Hill when one of those commitments came to fruition in the form of large bins to be used as toilets. Everyone in the House and probably everyone across Canada would agree that is not only an inadequate response but an offensive response, when the day-to-day reality on first nations is one that is so far off the average Canadian's. It is quite clear that inadequate sewage and water systems have held people back on these first nations and continue to hold people back.

It is an issue that has been raised by local and regional leadership. We have seen the federal government respond to these demands in a very inadequate way through the continuous use of short-term and, in some cases, even offensive measures through the sending of bins to be used as toilets.

The fact of the matter remains that these are not issues mired in silence. There are international campaigns that have focused on the plight of the Island Lake first nations and other first nations in Canada, pointing to the lack of water security and the need for immediate action by the federal government.

I want to reference a study that was commissioned by the government itself that found that an investment of $5 billion over 10 years was needed to truly ensure safe water systems for first nations. This also included the need for an immediate investment of $1.2 billion. That study was commissioned by the government itself, so the numbers are clear, stark and significant. This would be an answer to what is perhaps the clearest indication yet that there are still first peoples of Canada living in third world conditions, which is unacceptable.

Instead, however, the Conservatives have only committed $330 million over two years. We saw that in 2010 and no commitments were made in 2011. Now we are in 2012. As we know, as these first nations communities grow, the need to access safe drinking water only grows along with them.

What we have here today is again an inadequate and very problematic response to a very serious issue facing first nations.

We as New Democrats are proud to be able to work with first nations' national leadership, but also regional, local leaders and community band members to say that Bill S-8 is absolutely the wrong way to go.

I want to make another point as well. One wonders how a government could go so far back in time. One only has to look at the kind of legislation the government is bringing forward when it comes to first nations to understand that trend, because Bill S-8 also involves no consultation with first nations. This is not an optional piece. We certainly have learned from our political and societal evolution and the mistakes of the past that if we do not consult with first nations and use a top-down approach, it is the wrong way to go. It simply revives the colonial relationship that Canada for so long imposed on first nations, a relationship that has caused nothing but grief.

We have an opportunity here to break free from that trend and sit down with first nations to not just hear from them or media reports about how bad things are, but also to work to find an adequate solution that works for them. This lack of consultation is extremely disturbing.

The Conservatives have a track record of broken promises. In March 2006 they announced a plan to implement the protocol for safe drinking water for first nations communities. Their piecemeal strategy was not fully implemented and failed to solve the problem. In 2010, the Conservatives introduced Bill S-11 to improve standards for first nations' drinking water quality, focusing on existing provincial regimes, contrary to the preference of its own expert panel and the wishes of the Assembly of First Nations.

Aboriginal groups were also unhappy with the legislation because the government failed to adequately consult them, ignoring first nations' right to self-government and to water and environmental protection. Now the Conservatives are introducing Bill S-8, with only minor changes from previous legislation. Again, I want to reiterate the important point about lack of consultation.

I noted earlier in response to the speech by my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona that we are seeing this disturbing trend in a host of pieces of legislation when it comes to first nations. The same applies to the matrimonial property rights bill and the first nations transparency bill. First nations have caught onto this and so have Canadians. For us to move forward, however, consultation with first nations is absolutely key.

The Prime Minister himself indicated that he was interested in a new relationship and a new chapter when it came to first nations. It was something he spoke of very clearly in his apology to residential school survivors and those who have suffered the intergenerational trauma of residential schools. Evidently, they are just words because when it comes to action, we are seeing bill after bill seeking to impose a framework on first nations without consultation. However, the government goes even further by imposing some real challenges when it comes to respect for aboriginal rights.

The regulations in Bill S-8 would overrule any laws or bylaws made by a first nation. However, interestingly, the bill would limit the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of its duties under the regulations.

Therefore, we see a system with two standards. One is for first nations in taking on a liability without, of course, the necessary support for building infrastructure and human resource capacity to deliver safe water systems. On the other hand, the government is able to run away from its own potential liability. If that is not a clear indication of how unfair Bill S-8 is, then I do not know what is. I believe this to be an indication that the government would pull away from its own commitments. I would also note that this is an option that the government is increasingly interested in as it moves forward in reaching out to first nations.

Another key trend that we are seeing, not just in terms of first nations but also in terms of the provinces, is the Conservative government's zeal in downloading services and responsibilities on other jurisdictions.

Let us look at the example of first nations, the most impoverished jurisdiction in the country bar none. They are not like municipalities or provinces that face challenges. We know that the situation first nations face in terms of lack of resources and capacity is the most extreme. However, the government, through Bill S-8, would like to download a critical service, which it ought to be responsible for, onto first nations without giving them the support they need to ensure they have the right infrastructure and capacity.

That is setting them up to fail. It is the federal government absconding on its responsibility and it really speaks to its lack understanding of its fiduciary obligation to first nations. Perhaps, more broadly, it is a complete lack of vision when it comes to building a better Canada. I believe this is the saddest part of what we are debating here and what we often debate in the House.

The Conservative government, with its omnibus budget bills, and with health transfers and support for post-secondary education and the need for stronger infrastructure programs, is like no other in its desire to pull away from what is fundamentally its responsibility.

We saw a similar kind of zeal under the Liberal government in the 1990s. One would have expected the Conservative government to take note of that kind of approach to governing. The government has taken it to the next level at hyper speed, saying that it has nothing to do with fundamental services that ought to be offered to Canadians. That is something that I and many other Canadians we are increasingly opposed to. The federal government has less and less to do with health transfers, with supporting affordable education and with making sure that our roads are of good quality and that there is adequate infrastructure in communities, and with playing a role when it comes to protecting the environment and with supporting people at the margins of society in achieving a better quality of life and, most specifically, in the context of Bill S-8, with making sure that first nations have access to safe drinking water like any other Canadians. It is a sad state of affairs when the leadership of the federal government pulls away from its responsibility and the concept that a better Canada involves a federal government working with other partners, including in consultation with first nations in addressing the real gap that exists with the lack of safe drinking water in first nation communities.

I know well the experience of first nations communities in my part of the country in northern Manitoba. However, I also know there are many members across the aisle who also represent first nation communities where similar challenges exist, where they see people getting sick because of the lack of safe drinking water and living in abject poverty without the kinds of services other Canadians take for granted. I would ask them what they are doing for those people and why they are letting go of the responsibility they have to ensure that first nations, Métis, Inuit and all Canadians have access to the kinds of infrastructure we all expect in a country as wealthy as Canada.

I am proud to be part of the New Democratic Party that stands with first nations and opposes legislation that re-enacts the colonial relationship and fails to consult with first nations. I am proud to be part of a party that calls for immediate action so that first nations can live in dignity, the way we all deserve to.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my hon. colleague is well known for her work in environmental activism and being a leader in calling for states and obviously Canada to take a lead role in that area.

The question of ensuring safe water systems has an environmental aspect to it. I am wondering if she could comment on how Bill S-8 fails to ensure environmental sustainability.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her continued advocacy on behalf of the first nations not only within her constituency but across the country.

Indeed, it is a concern that not just the official opposition is raising. New Democrats are raising this concern on behalf of the first nations who have been trying to get the federal government to live up to its commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by which the government has committed to respect and honour the right of first nations to self-determination and self-governance.

At the Crown-first nations gathering this past January, there again was strong language by the Prime Minister of this country on behalf of the government to strengthen and reset the relationship with the Crown and first nations and to move away from the unilateral imposition of policies and laws. Yet in Bill S-8 we see the same old same old.

Frankly, I am stunned given the constitutional obligation upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal government's duty for advanced consultation, consideration and accommodation of first nations' rights and interests to the peoples and their lands. It is rather stunning that even the government's own environmental legislation requires that the public be consulted when it is developing an array of environmental laws, yet it did not see fit to impose at least that precondition in the promulgation of regulations under the bill.

Overall, there was some movement, grudgingly, toward consultation on Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 in Alberta, but that was because first nations remonstrated so strongly that they needed to be consulted.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for raising key points here in the House as to why we oppose Bill S-8.

I wonder if she could elaborate on a very disturbing trend we are seeing from the government with regard to first nation legislation and the lack of consultation, not just in the context of Bill S-8 but also when it comes to matrimonial property rights and first nations' accountability. I would like to hear the member's comments on how she views this approach.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to sum up the address I provided on the bill. As I mentioned in my comments last week, there is a lot of support for moving forward on an expedited and complete action to provide safe drinking water to first nation communities, as other Canadians have taken for granted for many decades. We are fully in support of the government finally moving forward and expediting action on this.

The problem is that the bill is in fact hollow. There is no substance whatsoever to Bill S-8. All of the substance will come in the regulatory agenda that is provided for in the bill. All of that action will proceed presumably in consultation with the first nations but there is no provision in that bill requiring that the government consult directly when developing and implementing those regulations with the more than 600 first nations that will be impacted.

Second and more important, the Auditor General, the expert panel that previous governments appointed to address this outstanding problem, the first nations and the organizations that represent them have been very clear over the past decades that we cannot enact legislation that will transfer liability and responsibility to first nation communities to deliver their own safe drinking water programs, if the appropriate and necessary resources are not transferred at the same time.

I am sad to say that we do not see anything in the current budget or the supplemental dollars that will enable either the necessary consultation with the first nations on developing and implementing the regulations, or the installation, operation and maintenance of the necessary mechanisms to provide the safe drinking water.

As I mentioned, there are a number of additional problems with the legislation, which hopefully can be addressed in committee. Some of those include the fact that there is a failure to establish the regulatory and operational advisory bodies recommended by the expert panel and by the first nation interveners before the Senate. Those include the first nation water tribunal and the first nation water commissions, which would genuinely provide a voice to first nations to work alongside the federal government in actually implementing this legislation, or in implementing their own regime.

That is another error in the legislation pointed out by the head of the Assembly of First Nations. There is no recognition in this legislation that the first nations themselves may already have a regime for safe drinking water or may choose to go down the path, with assistance from the federal government, of implementing their own regime.

There are also problems with the non-derogation clause, which one could shoot a cannon through, a huge exemption. Clause 7 also provides a potential conflict with section 35 of the Constitution, where it would allow federal regulations under Bill S-8 to prevail over first nation laws.

In closing, I would like to share a very strong comment by National Chief Shawn Atleo of the Assembly of First Nations in his submission to the Senate in their review of Bill S-8. After going through a number of these additional concerns, where he welcomes some action finally by the government, he remonstrated with them for these kinds of concerns and also for the failure to consult. He said:

Bill S-8, as part of ongoing process started with Bill S-11 prior to the [Crown-first nations gathering], continues a pattern of unilaterally imposed legislation and does not meet the standards of joint development and clear recognition of First Nation jurisdiction. The engagement of some First Nations and the modest changes made to the Bill do not respond to the commitment to mutual respect and partnership envisioned by the [Crown-first nations gathering].

As I shared at the outset of my speech last week, even the first nations in Alberta, in Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8, while they expressed gratitude to the minister for finally coming back and consulting them in greater detail, said very clearly that they did not think it was appropriate to move forward until there was the adequate funding and an undertaking to directly engage them in the development of the regulations.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When we last had debate on Bill S-8, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona had four minutes remaining in her remarks.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Committees of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am a bit dismayed that my colleague across the way seems to have missed the part that I said for emphasis about the concern that we have around the committee. He suggested in his last point about the moot nature of amendments coming from committees. Some of the committees were given one committee meeting to hear from a couple of witnesses, view all of the clauses of the bill that were proposed, somehow formulate those amendments in the committee, and then vet those amendments and pass them on. Some committees did in fact move amendments.

My point is that in the instruction that came from the finance committee, it says quite explicitly in section (c), “any amendments suggested by the other Standing Committees, in the recommendations conveyed pursuant to paragraph (b),” which was all of the sections before, “shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45”. It is a committee instructing a whole set of other committees to move clauses that were then deemed to be accepted as if they were moved at that committee. Committees do not have the power to do this. Only the House of Commons can convey this power upon a committee.

I would argue that this has been a disaster from the start. Initially the government said it would not split any of the bill. Then it split off MP and senators' pensions. Then, by a mistake of the Liberals, it threw 450,000 public pensioners into that submission as well, which was then changed again. We created a whole new Bill C-46, which was then passed on through the Senate for royal recommendation.

The finance minister said we were not splitting the bill. Then we get to committee and they have this cockamamie motion that sends all sorts of instructions to other committees and asks them to move amendments to clauses of the bill that they were not given time to study, with a minimal number of witnesses, and then to move those amendments back to the committee as if they had existed there, as if somehow the House of Commons had instructed them to do that.

We gave the Conservatives that option. We gave them the option to move the bill through in a timely fashion. The member talks about some sort of congressional system in the U.S. where budget bills go to the eleventh hour. We gave the government assurance of a timeline. We gave it a section of the bill to be carved out and studied properly because that is the whole function of Parliament, to hold the government to account. The government refused it and said that instead we would have this system in which we endow the finance committee with far more powers than anyone ever imagined.

If this is allowed to go on, in the future we could then say that committees are allowed to take far greater instruction, to break all of the precedents that this place guides itself by and to start instructing amendments to come from different places, instructing committees to study bills whether they want to or not, and then that all comes back to one committee, which somehow has become powerful.

In terms of the last point, that every bill, every consideration of this place has to do with the economy and therefore the finance committee, under some perverse notion by the House leader of the government, would then have to study every bill brought forward. Of course that is not what we are talking about. It is appropriate for Bill S-8 to go to the Indian affairs committee. It is appropriate for bills that have something to do with the environment to go to the environment committee, which was our point from the beginning.

The problem with the omnibus bill is that it crowded together so many various issues, which Conservatives used to say was a bad idea when they were in opposition. Now suddenly they are in government and they think omnibus bills are the best thing and start to create the largest ones in Canadian history and jam everything together. It does not work. It does not allow Parliament to perform its function for the people that we represent.

Clearly, there is a great deal of detail and procedural orientation to this, but if the government House leader chooses to ignore the most fundamental and foundational point of this point of order, then he is choosing to be blind to the fact of what his government and the finance minister created when they made this mess of a monster omnibus bill.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the members should calm down. They are cutting into my time. I know all the members, especially those on the other side, and especially the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are waiting with bated breath for my comments.

I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his heartfelt grounded intervention on behalf of his first nations constituents.

There are a number of members in the House who have first nations communities in their ridings. I know they stand with me, no matter what party they are in, in that it is time for us as a nation to stand up and look after their interests so they can be treated equably as all other Canadians. The member for Timmins—James Bay has been an incredible advocate for those constituents.

Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, has been a long time in coming. Regrettably, it continues to be the policy of the government not to bring important legislation, in a timely manner, before the elected House. Instead, for the second time in a row, it tabled the bill first in the Senate.

Now the Conservatives are trying to object to the fact that we might actually want to propose changes to the bill, changes that have come to our attention by the first nations themselves. It is absolutely reprehensible. It shows a great disdain for Canadians who have chosen to elect us and send us to this place.

First, it is important to consider that the provision of safe drinking water for first nations is a federal responsibility. This is not a responsibility that the federal government can slough off to the provincial and territorial governments.

Second, no federal laws exist to regulate safe drinking water or waste water in first nations communities, so we have a complete vacuum. This is unlike the provinces and territories, where they have seen cause to step up to the plate and put in place regimes to protect those for whom they are responsible so they can live in the modern world.

Another appropriate starting point is to clarify the state of drinking water in first nations communities. The current update posted on the Health Canada website reports that as of October 31, 122 first nations communities across the country remain under a drinking water advisory. That means 122 first nations communities cannot go to the tap for a glass of water. It is absolutely reprehensible in the 21st century. That is 122 communities and countless numbers of aboriginal children, elders, people who risk illness from contaminated drinking water in 2012. It is simply unforgiveable.

It is not just me or my colleagues on this side of the House who say it is unforgiveable. In her final audit report in 2011, former Auditor General Sheila Fraser called for even deeper reforms to ensure that first nations on reserve were accorded the services comparable to other Canadians, including access to safe drinking water.

Mrs. Fraser identified that structural impediments to improve access to these basic services, which most other Canadians take for granted, must be resolved if we were to see real results. These include not only a legislative base or program, which is what the government has presumably put forward, but also clarified service levels, commensurate statutory funding, an end to the reliance on policy or contribution agreements and support to organizations that support service delivery to first nations.

For example, the Alberta Technical Services Advisory Group has for many years supported the first nations in addressing problems with their drinking water systems. I might point out that those are the very kinds of organizations the government has chosen to cut back in the budget.

It is very important what Sheila Fraser had pointed out. To this point in time, in this day and age in the 21st century, first nations communities have to wait, with open hand, for the government to decide from year to year whether they will have sufficient funds to provide a glass of safe drinking water for their children. She said that it was beyond high time that this obligation to transfer the necessary money be imposed by statute and be obligatory. We do not find that in Bill S-8.

The government made a previous half-hearted effort at proposing legislation and then let it die on the order paper.

Bill S-11, also tabled in the Senate in 2010, was roundly criticized by first nations and legal experts. Bill S-8 was also first tabled in the Senate and now finally brought before the House.

Regrettably, there has been little parallel action on the other measures needed to address the critical need for safe drinking water supply in first nation communities.

It should be pointed out that the government is well aware of the core barriers experienced by the majority of first nations in providing safe drinking water supplies to their communities, including: the equipment, construction and maintenance facilities, especially in remote areas, is costly; much of the necessary infrastructure is either lacking, obsolete or of poor quality; there is a limited local capacity or limited ability to retain qualified operators and even when they are trained, they then move on to other communities where they can be paid better; and, limited resources to properly fund water system operation and maintenance.

The current federal budgeted amount of $330 million over two years offers only a small percentage of the $4.7 billion capital costs and estimated $419 million per year to upgrade and run drinking water systems in compliance with the intended law.

If this intended law is passed, there will almost immediately be an obligation by all the first nations to deliver safe drinking water. I say almost because the government fails to mention that the law absolutely has no substance, so it will take five to ten years to actually develop these regulations. Once that is in place, then we will have close to a $5 billion deficit, with no undertaking that it will provide that.

No new moneys have been committed for the promised direct negotiations with the first nations on the strategy to implement the proposed law or for the promised negotiation process on the myriad of complex and technical regulations necessary to give any real substance to Bill S-8. There is no indication that the government has begun to move away from the one-off contribution agreements to long-term financial commitments to finance drinking water systems, as recommended by the former auditor general.

Far from delivering the support for organizations that can support first nations in developing and managing effective drinking water, in this budget the government has cut back support to these entities, including treaty organizations that provide support on technical and policy matters to first nations, which brings us to the matter of consultation on the bill.

The duty to directly consult first nations on legislative or policy matters that affect them is not a mere nicety. Aboriginal Canadians are not mere stakeholders in this legislative process. The duty to consult and accommodate is a constitutional duty established in legal precedent echoed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada finally endorsed.

At the January Crown-First Nations Gathering, the government publicly committed to support first nations self-government to strengthen and reset the government-to-government relationship and to move away from the unilateral imposition of laws and policies.

Self-government was endorsed under the UNDRIP. However, at the last minute, we saw some move, despite calls by first nations over decades, of the minister to met with at least one treaty group in Alberta.

I will quote a comment made at the Crown-First Nations Gathering on the consultation process, which states:

At the recent Crown–First Nations Gathering, First Nations and our Government committed to working together to support strong, healthy First Nation communities...[The bill] is a key milestone in making this a reality...

That statement was made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who said that the process for the consultation on Bill S-8 was a milestone in making the government-to-government relationship a reality. Yet we have a statement from the Assembly of First Nations stating that the government has continued a pattern of unilaterally imposing legislation that does not meet the standards of joint development and a clear recognition of first nations jurisdiction.

This so-called exceptional process of sitting down and reviewing proposed legislation was in fact the common practice of most past governments. In many instances, white papers or even draft formats of bills were circulated and consulted to ensure that the interests of all 600 first nations, not just one first nation, were considered and accommodated. This made for sound, supported, workable legislation. Again, in the case of the first nations, this consultation is an obligation, not just an option.

Even when late in the day some discussions did occur with first nations, they expressed concerns that their issues had not been fully addressed. They were also clear that the process did not constitute “consultation”. This is made evident in testimony before the Senate on the bill.

By way of example, Treaty 6, 7 and 8 testified that while a limited number of their representatives had a chance to review the bill, incidentally, less than a week before it was tabled in the Senate, a number of significant outstanding concerns were yet to be addressed. I reference these three groups as they were among the few that the minister finally relented to discuss in more detail their concerns with the proposed law before it was tabled.

In his testimony, Charles Weaselhead, Grand Chief of the Treaty 8 First Nations Chiefs Association, echoed the views of many when he said that “support of the Alberta Chiefs is not unconditional” and that first an agreement must be reached “on an adequately funded joint process for the development of the regulations”.

We have members of the one group, which the minister actually took the time to hear what their issues, saying that it is not enough. What they need at the same time is the commitment of the money.

Further, Grand Chief Weaselhead said:

Second, the national engineering assessment identified that only three First Nation systems in Alberta are operating safely with certainty....About a dozen systems in Alberta pose significant risks to human health.

He advised that about $160 million was needed to update facilities just for Alberta.

He testified that while they were willing to be patient, their patience was not limitless. He said, “the Government of Canada must also make a firm commitment toward infrastructure, monitoring and capacity”.

They have yet to obtain any binding commitment to a regulatory development process that is well-funded and approved by the chiefs and no commitment of the $140 million funding gap identified by the National Engineering Assessment for just Alberta.

I now wish to share a number of the serious deficiencies identified in the bill itself as a safe drinking water regulatory framework.

Frankly, I am stunned that the government has stated at this stage that it will not allow amendments. This kind of questions the value of even having a committee and bringing in these first nation and legal experts again.

However, these are some of the issues that were raised before the non-elected house. Many of the issues were raised by expert panels and legal experts testifying in the Senate and in previous government reviews, treaty organizations and individual first nations.

The main purpose the bill appears to have is transferring liability from the federal government to first nations for delivery of the drinking water regime. Of equal concern is the fact that the full long-term costs and liability have yet to be calculated. The transfer of liability would be made with no binding commitment that the federal government would provide the necessary funds for technical training or equipment. However, Bill S-8 carefully imposes limits on the liability of federal ministers and officials.

Bill S-8 is essentially lacking in substance. It would merely be an enabling law. It would allow for, but does not require, any federal action to promulgate the myriad regulations necessary to establish drinking water standards, public hearings, appeal procedures, standards for training and certification of water systems and operators, waste water disposal, emergency response and so forth.

The law would impose no obligation on the federal government to deliver these rules in a timely manner. It would impose no obligation on the federal government to finance development or implementation of the first nations drinking water regime. Despite the non-derogation clause, Bill S-8 may have as its key purpose to transfer away treaty and constitutional obligations in this regard.

Incredibly, the law would impose no requirement for consultation with the first nations in the promulgation of these rules, regardless of the overriding constitutional duty to consult and despite the fact that most laws enacted these days, especially for environmental matters, specify that the government must in advance consult.

Finally, the bill ignores the advice of the very expert panel appointed by the federal government, which recommended the establishment of two independent entities to provide direction and oversight on the water regime.

A first nation water commission was recommended. It was to be mandated to oversee the licensing and operation of water facilities and to advise the ministers and first nations. The second entity recommended was a first nation water tribunal mandated to hear appeals on water approvals and investigate complaints. It was suggested that entity could provide one of the bridges to self-governance over water, which has been promised.

As pointed out by the Assembly of First Nations in their brief to the Senate, despite appreciation expressed that the government provided a slightly stronger non-derogation clause it appears to include a broad loophole in the words “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nation lands”.

The obvious question arising is: Who decides that? Consistent with the remainder of the bill, it appears it would be the minister.

Another issue is that, astoundingly, the bill imposes no obligations on the federal government to consult first nations in the promulgation of any of the implementing regulations. This not only runs contrary to most environmental laws, as I said, but to their constitutional obligation.

Concerns have been raised with the option of incorporation by reference of provincial regulations. This has not been a common practice and serious concerns have been raised by a number of legal experts.

It is incumbent on the government today to admit that the law is not enough. It must, today, commit that it will not enact this law until it has provided the resources necessary to genuinely implement the long overdue protections for first nation water.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-8 would basically transfer responsibility, that is, it would transfer liability, to communities that have been calling out for years for resources to ensure that they will have safe and adequate drinking water. To New Democrats this bill seems to be aimed at cutting off a whole segment of Canadian society, a segment of Canadian society that is being denied basic water rights and safety in their communities. First nations will now told that they are responsible for anything that goes wrong, but will not have the resources to address that.

We see from the 2011 release of the national assessment of first nation water systems that over 39% of first nation communities in Canada are at high risk, meaning there is a threat to human health, and 34% are at medium risk. The shortfall is going to be $4.7 billion over the next 10 years.

Why does my colleague think the government did not bring this forward in a throne speech where it would have set out a clear commitment to clean drinking water and resources, and why is it proposing to basically leave--

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a critically important issue for all of us to recognize, the issue of financial resources. To deal with the issue of clean running water, we are not talking about tens of millions of dollars but literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Bill S-8 does not allow for any sort of government commitment.

Last year the leader of the Liberal Party introduced a motion in the House that all members voted in favour of, a motion aimed at ensuring that the government of the day recognized the urgency of dealing with the issue of clean running water. We were happy that the Conservatives voted in favour of the motion, recognizing how important an issue it was. However, we are disappointed they did not follow through by providing the necessary financial resources to deal with this critically important issue. Unfortunately, until the government recognizes the importance of financial resources, first nations will not be able to have the clean running water they are demanding today. We appeal to the government to look at the resource issue so that we can deal with the issue at hand.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to speak to this bill. I will be splitting my time with the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

Clean running water is an important issue, which I posed in a question a few minutes ago to my colleague from the New Democratic Party. It is something for which I believe a vast majority of Canadians take for granted. After all, most Canadians live in metropolitan centres, such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Halifax and St. John's, from coast to coast. We assume that the water we drink is healthy and that all Canadians have access to clean running water sources. We need to recognize that there are deficiencies all over Canada with regard to clean drinking water or clean water for bathing.

At the end of the day, I believe all political parties will recognize the importance of having clean running water. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party introduced a motion in November of last year calling upon the House to address the urgent need of first nations communities whose members have no clean running water in their homes. There was great support for that motion. We were quite proud of the fact that we were able to provide that debate in the House last November. At the end of the debate, the consensus was that we should pass the motion. The Liberal Party was quite happy with the unanimous support from all political parties.

We expected some action would be taken. That happened about a year ago in the House. We now have before us Bill S-8, which has a huge gap, the gap being that there are no real financial resources being tied to it. If we are not prepared to recognize the importance of capital infrastructure in order to provide clean running water, we can talk all we want but it will not change the fact. The fact is that there are far too many first nations people living on reserves who do not have access to clean running water. That is something the government needs to be more sensitive to. It is great that it says that it will support the Liberal Party motion that recognizes the importance of the issue and then introduced Bill S-8, but at the end of the day the area of greatest concern must be the financial resources.

I went on the Internet to see just how serious a problem it is. Every year we hear about boil water advisories. Manitoba has thousands of freshwater lakes, rivers, just name it, with high-quality water. In fact, many talk about how we will be able to export water into the future. It is a wonderful natural resource that Manitoba is blessed to have. How that water is managed is being watched very closely.

If we compare Manitoba to many countries in the world, it is amazing the degree to which we have so much good quality water.

I will talk about the list of boil water advisories in Manitoba. These lists are on the Internet and can be accessed by everyone. It is amazing the type of information people can find on the Internet. I think the list of communities would surprise a lot of people. The list includes Alexander, Anola, Balmoral, Birch River, Blue Lakes Resort, Brandon, Carey, Cartwright, the Churchill River Lodge, Duck Bay, East Selkirk, Elma, Fairford, the Garrison, Gem Lake, Glenboro Health Centre, Grand Marais, Granville Lake, Great Falls, Haywood, Île-des-Chênes, Inwood, Lac du Bonnet, Lee River, Lynn Lake, New Bothwell, and the list goes on. The list even includes Pelican Lake, a beautiful are in which we have our cottage. These are all communities where there has been a great deal of concern, and I did not even list half of them in Manitoba. On this particular list it shows 110 where they have boil water advisories or other concerns regarding blooms, but 95% of those are just boil water advisories.

People may ask themselves what it means when they see a boil water advisory. In many of these communities, much like on our reserves, people are astounded to hear that they need to boil their water in order to drink it. Quite often, that is what they need to do. Putting it into perspective, that is nothing new for many people on reserves or in first nations communities. They deal with this year in and year out, which is why we in the Liberal Party tried to raise the profile of the issue. We do not get very many opposition days. It would be nice if the government would allow us to have a few more. However, even with the few that we do have, we listed this issue as an opposition day motion because we felt it was something the House needed to address.

What do we mean when we say “boil water”? The Manitoba government has been somewhat weak in many areas but in certain areas it has made some progress. If we go to its website, we get all sorts of information in regard to what is meant by “boil water”. The Manitoba government website states:

Water Advisories are issued for a drinking water system or a drinking water source by a Medical Officer of Health (Manitoba Health) due to a confirmed or suspected water quality problem. Affected residents and businesses are notified in the event an advisory is issued and provided with instructions on precautionary measures.

There is so much there. At this point, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his speech, which gave me goosebumps several times.

From what I know of aboriginal issues, I do not think there has been much progress since the 19th century. Unfortunately, I would say that there has probably been a regression.

Obviously, the fact that legislation is proposed but the means do not follow is a very troubling aspect of the government's stubbornness in wanting to speed up the process and circumvent a thorough examination of Bill S-8, without taking into account the effects this could have.

I get the impression that the government wants to put a lid on this affair, that it wants to shut this whole thing down and abandon the first nations. What does the member for Timmins—James Bay think about that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague was here for my whole speech because we would have talked about what happened in 2005-06 and how I worked with Jim Prentice. He recognized this. Unfortunately, the standard that was set for the department of Indian affairs under Jim Prentice has dropped drastically, I am sorry to say.

We are in a situation now where, under the first nations water systems assessment, done in April 2011, 39% of communities are at high risk and 34% at medium risk. When a community is said to be at high risk, that means life and death. That means threats from E. coli, sickness and people going to the hospital.

The issue before us here is, if we are going to talk about bringing these communities up to a standard, we have to ask where the money is. Where is the long-term commitment? We know that Minister Prentice, at the time, made water a priority issue in 2006, in the first Conservative budget, and started a process of consultation. However, we talk to the chiefs across the country who were part of that process—for example, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, for which I have such great respect. It said that what is coming out of Bill S-8 is not part of the consultation process.

We have a long way to go, and we need to keep that front and centre on this issue.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House to speak to the bill. I want to give my hon. colleagues the actual history of what went down around safe drinking water and why we are here today.

The bill before us is supposed to reflect the consultation that happened as a result of the horrific E. coli contamination in Kashechewan in 2005. I was in Kashechewan in 2004 and 2005 when we were trying to deal with the federal Liberal government at the time and warn it about the water crisis and the fact that there were no water standards on reserve. However, the fact that there were no water standards on reserve was a perfect get-out-of-jail card for the then Liberal government.

With my dear friend, Jack Layton, who was leader of the party at the time, we visited the Kashechewan water treatment plant because the community was concerned. There was no real training in any of those communities for the maintenance of water safety and the equipment was completely breaking down. Jack and I saw pumps that were being held together with duct tape and they were using boards to hold up supports.

Of course, when E. coli broke out in November 2005, the then Department of Indian Affairs completely ignored the situation because it did not want to spend the money. Within the capital budgets of the Department of Indian Affairs, then and now, money is used to put out fires here, there and everywhere, but the department ignores actual health and safety issues.

The other department that had a key role to play was Health Canada, which has, over the years, continually left people at risk if it means spending any money. Therefore, when E. coli was found in the water system in Kashechewan, Health Canada's response was the rubber stamp that it responds with every single time first nations are put at risk: “boil your water”.

We have had communities that have had a boil water advisory for five, six, seven or ten years running. In the case of Kashechewan, Health Canada actually had the nerve to tell people that the solution for E. coli was to just boil the water. It was like telling the families to bathe their children in the toilet. That would be the same thing.

To put this in context, it happened in Ontario, which was ground zero of the biggest E. coli scandal in Canadian history and basically a direct result of the front line of the current Conservative government bench, who were then under the Harris Conservatives in the “common sense revolution”. The Walkerton E. coli scandal shocked people and changed water standards in every community in Ontario, except on reserve. For the people on reserve, they were left completely on their own.

We were in Ontario with a major E. coli outbreak and the federal and provincial governments fought back and forth for about two to three weeks about what they were going to do. As unfortunately happens, whenever we have a crisis in one of our communities, they just hope that people stop complaining and it will go away. Well, it did not. The James Bay medical authority came up and, under Dr. Murray Trusler, took pictures of children. It was the pictures of children in Kashechewan in 2005 that shocked not just this nation but others around the world. We were faced with a forced full evacuation of the community of Kashechewan because the entire infrastructure had collapsed.

At the time, I was working with the then opposition critic, Jim Prentice. I have always had a great deal of respect for Jim Prentice, not just because he is from Timmins and comes from the famous Prentice brothers hockey family, but because Jim was deeply concerned. When the present Conservative government came in we had an Indian affairs minister who took his file seriously and had a level of competence. One could disagree with him and still know that he was a man who took it seriously. Jim Prentice had said that he needed to deal with the water situation on reserves because it was appalling. Jim knew that one of the problems was that there were absolutely no standards. Without any standards, anything could happen.

As the Conservatives are claiming now, there was a consultation process that was put in place. However, fast forward to today, the bill that was brought through the unelected, unaccountable Senate is not the result of the consultations that took place with first nation communities across Canada. The bill is something completely different. It really speaks to how far down the Conservative government has gone in terms of its willingness to be accountable to Canada's most vulnerable population, which is within our first nation communities.

The bill has a lot of window dressing on language about water quality, but is about the transferring of liability to communities that do not have the resources to maintain adequate water safety standards. There is always this underlying dog whistle to the Conservative base that says the government has to bring in these standards to make people actually bother to look after their own communities, as if the communities have not been calling out for years for what they need, which are the dollars and the infrastructure to maintain proper water treatment plants. I do not know of a single community in my riding or any community in this country where safe water drinking standards can be maintained if there are no adequate systems.

According to the April 2011 release of the National Assessment of First Nation Water and Wastewater Systems, we have a situation under the current government, despite all the consultations, where 39% of the first nation communities in Canada are high risk, which means that people can die. Of those communities, 34% are at medium risk. We are looking at a bill that is going to transfer liability to the Bantustans and shanty shack towns of the far north and tell them to fix it without doing anything to ensure that those Canadian citizens have the resources that any other Canadian would take for granted. That is what the bill is about.

Think about the kind of money the government was going to blow on the F-35 in 2011. Yet it told 39% of first nation communities that they could remain at high risk, and if they did not have the training or the money to fix it, the government would go after them. That is the systemic negligence that has gone on and continues to go on in this country. Whether we are talking about health services, policing or education, it is a system of apartheid that has been set up and maintained. There are two levels of people in this country. When 39% of first nation communities are at high risk because their water is dirty and the government tells them that it is their responsibility, that is absolutely intolerable.

The government's sleight of hand is to set the standards but to not put the money in place. What has been identified to deal with the shortfall right now is $146 million. That is what is needed. Dollars and cents are needed to get these water treatment centres up to standard. It is going to cost $4.7 billion over the next 10 years to maintain them, with an annual maintenance cost of $419 million. That is what the government needs to do. There needs to be a throne speech from the Government of Canada saying that the days of maintaining the fourth world communities in northern Canada are going to end and that it is going to put the funding and training in place. I have been in communities where people said they wanted the training.

Let us look at Bill S-8 in terms of a practical example. The Marten Falls First Nation is right beside the Ring of Fire. The federal and provincial governments are licking their chops to get their hands on the Ring of Fire. They are saying the Ring of Fire is going to be the greatest thing. Dalton McGuinty thinks it is going to restart his economic credibility once he gets his hands on it. The federal government is saying the Ring of Fire is going to be the oil sands of Ontario. Marten Falls is a little community that is right beside the Ring of Fire. It has been on a boil water advisory since 2005, for seven years. It is considered normal that the community has to boil its water year after year.

Health Canada has decided it spent a little too much looking after Marten Falls, so it is suspending the bottled water that has been going to the community. It has decided not to do it any more. This little community sits beside what will probably be one of the richest mineral developments in this coming century and its bottled water is being cut off.

How does that relate to Bill S-8? It actually relates in a very clear way, which I can explain to people back home. The community has been concerned. I remember people in the community were asking for help when the sewage lift was hit by lightning. They told Indian Affairs that they did not have, within their little community, the resources to fix it. They asked Indian Affairs to come in to work with them to fix it. However, Indian Affairs did not want to spend the money, so the sewage overflowed and the water system was contaminated. Now the government is saying it is tired of the situation in Marten Falls and that it will just put in a reverse osmosis water system and walk away.

At the same time, the government has commissioned a study to find out how to fix the problem in Marten Falls, how to fix the sewage and the water, but the department does not want to wait for the study. The band wants clean drinking water for its community. The band wants to work with the department, but it asks whether it would not be prudent to actually get the report, find out what works and then put the money in to ensure that it works in the long term. In first nation communities, again and again, the federal government always does what is cheapest and quickest. It puts whatever Band-Aid it can on the septic wound and walks away. When the Band-Aid fails, the federal government blames the community.

The community has raised legitimate, serious questions about whether a reverse osmosis system would work in their community. Because of the heavy level of turbidity in the water, the amount of bacteria that sits in the tank, it is not a system that would work. People in the community are asking the department to work with them. It does not necessarily have to be adversarial. However, the department has decided, thanks to some fonctionnaire at some level, that this is how it will go and the community can take it or leave it. Bill S-8 will then allow the government to hold the community accountable if something goes wrong, because it would be the community's responsibility, even though the community was not able to participate in the decision making.

I think I have had probably 12 or 13 states of emergency in four communities that I represent since 2005. A state of emergency is not something easy to declare. It just does not happen. A state of emergency happens when an entire community is put at risk.

The response in Ontario is interesting. If a municipality declares a state of emergency, Emergency Management Ontario is sent in at the provincial level and it will do an assessment immediately. Once that is done, plans are set up. What happens in first nation communities when a state of emergency is declared? People in the community call Indian Affairs, and Indian Affairs says, “Hell, no, we're not paying”, and the province will say that it is sorry but that the community is on its own. That has happened again and again.

I will give a few examples. We had two evacuations in one year in Kashechewan in 2008. The entire sewage system in Fort Albany collapsed and thousands of gallons of raw sewage, actual human waste, was piling up in people's basements. The department's response was to tell the people to stay there. People were actually staying in homes where the methane gas was coming up to such a toxic level that people were lighting candles in their basements to try to put the methane gas down.

The Indian affairs minister knew this. The department knew this. They had footage of it. They knew those houses were in danger of blowing up from methane gas. Families had little babies in those houses. The department thought that was okay because it did not want to spend the money. It did one Band-Aid solution after another because it did not want to do it right. A private company ended up flying in bottled water. A private company flew in pumps. The deadbeat government did not want to pay any bills. At the same time we had the ongoing rebuilding in Kashechewan from the floods there.

In 2009, we had a state of emergency declared in Attawapiskat from the sewage lift collapsing there. Once again, think of the communities on a stretch from Windsor to London and imagine three or four communities where the entire sewage system, in community after community, just collapses to the point that thousands of gallons of human waste is pumped into people's basements. That was happening on the James Bay coast between 2008 and 2011, and the government's response was to blame the community.

The Prime Minister got up and did his famous, “We gave those Indians $50,000 each, every man, woman and child. What did they do with our money?” That was the Prime Minister's response on the day when the International Red Cross came in to help people in Attawapiskat.

Of course, the Prime Minister did not bother to say that the price on the head of every first nation child and parent in Attawapiskat was based on overall spending over a six-, seven- and eight-year period. The Conservatives never put that number on non-native people, but thought it was perfectly okay in Attawapiskat because they were trying to divert attention from the fact that they had allowed not one, two, three nor four states of emergency in Attawapiskat to create a situation that we saw this past year in which the entire community was put at risk.

Let us talk about the Attawapiskat state of emergency in 2009 when the sewage systems failed and we had numerous homes damaged to the point where people were getting sick and needing to be medevaced. The Department of Indian Affairs and Health Canada said to keep the families in the houses with the raw sewage. Former minister Chuck Strahl was a great guy for never knowing there was a problem. He would just cover his ears and say he was just going to ignore these people until they shut up. That was the attitude, for a community that was calling for help.

Our new minister over there was shocked. He did not know there was a problem in Attawapiskat. Nobody told him. They had been told since 2009 that people were living in tents. Why were they living in tents? They were living in tents because their homes had been destroyed because the sewage had backed up.

The Nishnawbe Aski Nation is opposing Bill S-8 because it expected the government would work with the communities to put in the necessary resources so that when we have water standards on reserves, we would actually have the resources to ensure the communities can have standards. We have been pushing from the beginning to establish the same standards at the provincial and federal levels, so if they have water standards in a municipality in Ontario, first nations should have the same standards at the federal level.

We have been asking that for fire protection, and that does not happen. In 2007, Ricardo Wesley and Jamie Goodwin burned to death in a fire in a makeshift cell in Kashechewan. The federal and provincial governments fund the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service. They knew that those police officers were working in a situation where there were no fire sprinklers. They could not put in fire sprinklers because it was a shack. No police officer would be expected to work under those conditions in a provincial jurisdiction, but it was okay to do it at the federal level because it did not cost as much, so two young men burned to death. The 80-some recommendations from the jury, which came out of that horrific Kashechewan fire inquest, said that if there had been a basic sprinkler system those young men might not have died and the police officers who were seriously injured trying to save them would not have been put at risk.

It is about this system we have now, where there is one set of standards for all the municipalities and the provinces and all the non-native people across Canada. They live at one level, and then the first nations communities are left down at another level. The only time they changed that standard was on the so-called “session of accountability”, where we would hold those communities to account and blame those communities.

My good friend from Fort McMurray asked me about the chiefs who are taking the money down and spending it on gambling. I was scratching my head and wondering. Was he talking about Fort Chip or about Fort McKay, or about the communities that are living downstream from the oil sands investments, communities that are trying to get by? Are we to believe that they are taking their money and gambling in casinos? However, this is the kind of talk the current government members use. They are going to put a level of accountability on these impoverished first nations communities, without the money.

Are my hon. colleagues on the other side serious about following through on what Jim Prentice started? He was working with us at that time because Jim Prentice was a collaborative kind of guy. Where is the money? Where is the money to ensure we have these standards, because until we see the money, this is just another Conservative bill that would punish communities and leave them on their own.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was only a matter of minutes ago that we had time allocation put on Bill C-27. That, in essence, said that the members of the House would have limits on our abilities to contribute to the debate on a very important issue with regard to our first nations.

Now we are talking about the importance of water on our reserves and other areas and we have a government member moving a motion that would again prevent debate on a critically important issue. The Conservatives will not allow members, whether it is members of the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party or even the Green Party, the opportunity to address important issues.

When the member talks about consultation, why will he not be very specific and tell us what first nations leaders the Conservatives consulted prior to the drafting of either Bill S-8 or Bill C-27?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of my entire professional life, invested in living and working in first nations communities, I cannot recall a time when any government, provincial or federal, has engaged in such an extensive exercise of consultation. This government in 2006, in lockstep with the Assembly of First Nations, did a coast to coast to coast consultation to set the table for the kinds of principles that we are moving forward with respect to Bill S-8.

As somebody who worked with first nations communities on the input for this extensive consultation, I am pleased to report for the minister that we are moving forward on this legislation because it and two other essential components, namely capacity and infrastructure, are what first nations communities, their leadership, the AFN and technical experts have decided and have said that this is the way to move forward.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. The proposed legislation is an essential part of a larger collaborative strategy that would ensure that residents of first nations communities have reliable access to clean, safe drinking water, like all Canadians.

At a recent Crown-first nations gathering, first nations and the government committed to working together to support strong, healthy first nation communities. The safe drinking water for first nations act is a key milestone in making this a reality and a vital step toward ensuring that first nations have the same health and safety protections for drinking water in their communities as other Canadians.

While provinces and territories have their own legally binding safe drinking water standards, there are currently no legal enforceable protections for first nations governing drinking water and waste water on first nations lands. Following passage of Bill S-8, the Government of Canada would work in close partnership with first nations and other stakeholders to develop federal regulations for access to safe drinking water and to ensure the effective treatment of waste water and the protection of sources of drinking water on first nations' lands.

The proposed legislation would provide incentives to maintain the infrastructure involved, as well as clarify the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater treatment facilities on first nations' lands. First and foremost, however, and as our top priority, it would help protect the health and safety of first nations.

With that said, I move:

That the question be now put.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. To say I respectfully disagree with her assertions would be rather mild.

I would like to assure all members of the House that our government continues to improve the quality of life of aboriginal people with a robust and targeted approach to investments. Economic action plan 2012 contained $175 million for schools and $331 million for water infrastructure. That is significant funding aimed at improving the living conditions of aboriginal people in areas such as housing, water and education.

Our government recognizes that access to safe and affordable housing is essential for improving economic and social outcomes and for supporting healthy, sustainable first nation communities. Since 2006, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has allocated more than $1 billion to support first nations in meeting their housing needs. We will continue to work in partnership with first nations.

As I mentioned, economic action plan 2012 includes over $331 million over two years to build and renovate water infrastructure on reserve and to support the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality in first nation communities. Last winter we introduced Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, to ensure enforceable drinking water standards for first nations on reserve.

Just this past summer, our government announced funding for new water and waste-water infrastructure for several bands across Canada. Our combined investment in just two of these projects was close to $8 million. By 2014 our government will have invested approximately $3 billion in water and waste-water facilities in first nation communities. Any assertion that our government is not spending money in first nations communities is simply false.

I question the hon. member when she says that the mechanisms for delivering this money are somehow too burdensome or too cumbersome. What is wrong with having a system that ensures value for the taxpayer dollars being spent?

Our government supported the completion of 24 major projects. We have upgraded first nations water and waste-water systems. Overall, 402 major and minor first nation water and waste-water infrastructure projects will be supported this year. Another 139 capital projects are planned for 2012-13.

On top of that, we have an educational initiative for which we are spending $275 million, announced in budget 2012, which of course, the hon. member voted against. Education is at the heart of expanding opportunities for first nations people to fully participate in the economy. Education is crucial for success, as it provides a solid footing to expand the economic opportunities available to first nations people.

Any Canadian listening to this tonight can see that we are improving the lives of first nations communities through targeted investments. These examples are but a glimpse into the vast breadth of initiatives that have been undertaken by our government to improve the lives of aboriginal people by improving their living conditions.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, before we depart to our constituencies and events for Remembrance Day where most of us will be participating in remembrance services in our ridings, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

The week of November 19 will continue to see a lot of important action at the House committee level, where we are looking at the budget implementation act, Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, as it advances through the legislative process. The finance committee is supported by 10 other committees looking at it and all together they will conclude the review of this very important bill and the very important job creation and economic measures that are laid out, measures that were first put before Parliament back in our March budget.

Meanwhile, on Monday the House will continue the third reading debate of Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, which we started this morning. Given support for the bill from all corners of the House, I hope it will pass that day so the Senate can pass it before the end of the year.

After Bill C-44, it is our intention to take up the report stage and third reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, which was reported back from the agriculture committee yesterday. I hope we will see strong interest in passing that bill quickly, just as we did for second reading.

Once that bill passes on Monday, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act, if we do not finish the debate today.

That will be followed by second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, the chamber will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which was also reported back from committee yesterday.

I should also advise the House that on Tuesday when we return from the Remembrance Day week, immediately after question period I will call ways and means Motion No. 14 respecting some technical amendments to tax laws. Let me assure the House that there should be no doubt about this, but the opposition will no doubt be disappointed. This motion will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax.

Finally, on Thursday before question period, the House will resume second reading debate of Bill S-8 and after question period we will take up Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, also at second reading.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill S-8 concerning the safety of drinking water on first nation lands.

Essentially, the bill provides for the development of federal regulations governing the supply of drinking water, water quality standards and the elimination of wastewater in first nations communities.

It also stipulates that these regulations may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations concerning drinking water and wastewater in first nations communities. Access to drinking water is crucial to the health and safety of all Canadians, including the 500,000 people spread out among approximately 560 first nations.

Access to drinking water is also closely tied to the economic viability of various communities. For the past 10 years or more, studies have shown that many first nations communities do not have adequate access to safe drinking water. On September 30, 2012, 116 first nations communities across Canada were subject to an advisory regarding the quality of their drinking water.

In April 2011, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development estimated that 1,880 aboriginal households did not have running water and that 1,777 households did not have sewage services. In total, 807 water systems serve 560 first nations. It is estimated that a quarter of the water systems in first nations communities present a potential risk for the health and safety of the consumers.

I would like to speak briefly about the sharing of responsibilities in the area of water management. On first nations reserves south of the 60th parallel, the responsibility to guarantee the safety of drinking water is shared among first nations communities and the federal government. The chief and council are responsible for the planning and development of facilities that meet the needs of the community, especially in the supply of drinking water.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada provides funding for the supply of water and its associated infrastructure, in particular for the construction, modernization, operation and maintenance of water treatment facilities on reserve. The department also provides financial support for training purposes and for the issuance of facility operator certificates.

In this debate, it is important to stress that the crux of the problem has to do with under-investment by the federal government. According to a 2011 independent evaluation on water and sewage systems in first nations communities, $1.08 billion would be required to bring existing water and sewage systems in compliance with federal guidelines and protocols, and provincial standards and regulations.

It will also be necessary to put about $79.8 million into work that is not related to construction, such as training operators and preparing plans for protecting water sources and emergency response plans. In total, it will cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to guarantee that the first nations communities’ water and wastewater system needs are met. That one-time investment of $4.7 billion is in addition to the regular operating and maintenance budget, estimated at $420 million a year.

When we consider the extent of the need, it is easy to understand that the Conservative government’s recent investments amount to only a drop in the ocean. We also have to understand that access to drinking water involves investing in infrastructure, but also funding the science and the regulation.

Drinking water has to be stringently managed and regularly analyzed to ensure that it is safe and to protect public health. The provinces have put legislation and regulations in place to secure their drinking water distribution systems, but those do not apply on reserves.

Health Canada is responsible for ensuring that drinking water quality monitoring programs are in place and has to collaborate with the provinces and territories to make recommendations about drinking water quality in Canada.

Environment Canada is responsible for developing standards, guidelines and protocols for wastewater systems located on federal or aboriginal land, as defined in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

These same departments, which are responsible for conducting water management studies based on rigorous scientific standards, are engaging in mass layoffs of dozens of scientists because of the Conservative government’s budget cuts.

It must be noted that over 1,500 federal government professionals and scientists represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada were informed this week that their positions will be affected by the government’s irresponsible budget cuts.

Two thousand professionals represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, including 100 at health Canada, received a work force adjustment notice when the 2012 federal budget was tabled.

As well, in the Public Service Alliance, it is estimated that 1,200 unionized positions will be affected by the cuts at Health Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In short, the Conservative government’s budget cuts could reduce oversight.

In 2005, however, the Auditor General of Canada said that in most first nations communities, drinking water was analyzed less often than required under the recommendations for drinking water quality in Canada.

Why does the Conservative government want to set us back 10 years by making cuts to science and oversight?

In March 2012, I had the opportunity to participate in the showing of Wapikoni mobile in Boisbriand. This is an excellent travelling audiovisual creation project that criss-crosses aboriginal communities in Quebec to give young people an opportunity to tell their stories on film and in music. It is an excellent project, and one that has unfortunately been cut by the Conservative government.

In short, the NDP recognizes that the water supply systems are jeopardizing the health and welfare of the first nations.

But we also find it unacceptable that Bill S-2 proposes only to transfer responsibility for water supply systems to the first nations without giving them the resources they need in order to acquire adequate systems that meet their needs.

Like most first nations organizations that have spoken to this, and I am thinking in particular of the Assembly of First Nations, the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski nation, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the nations that have signed Treaty 7 in Alberta—

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity and I appreciate the work this member does with us on the committee. I want to raise two things as briefly as I need to be.

First, this whole notion of a lack of consultation is just foolish. Even before I was elected, in my capacity in two different professions, which were almost totally invested in first nations communities, I have never seen a government so thoroughly walk lock-step with first nations leadership across the country from coast to coast to coast since 2006 with the AFN, with community leadership.

I was working with community members to help draft reports for this national consultation. Frankly, there has not been legislation so thoroughly consulted with its constituents.

Further to that, with respect to the aboriginal treaty rights the hon. member raised in her speech, I remind her that Bill S-8 addresses the relationship between legislation and aboriginal treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act and it will not infringe on aboriginal and treaty rights, other than to the extent necessary to take health and safety measures to protect the source of drinking water.

I hope she can grasp the technical dimensions of that and the important and prevailing help—

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the debate today on this bill, but it is not because this is a good piece of legislation. It is a bill that misses the mark on an important issue.

The legislation concerns itself with a basic human right: the right to safe, sufficient, affordable drinking water. For too many in this world, that is unattainable, but while it might be tempting to think that struggle is the stuff of distant and impoverished nations, it is difficult to admit this is a challenge in many Canadian communities. It is even more difficult to admit how many of those—in fact, a disproportionately large number of them—are first nations communities.

For a country blessed with the freshwater resources of Canada, it should be unimaginable that this is the case. Yet here we are today debating a bill that seems more interested in pursuing a Conservative view of how first nations should be run than dealing with the actual problem. Bill S-8 is long on prescriptions and predictably short on resources to back them up, which helps explain, in part, why this is a problem that persists.

What we have is another in a series of bills that excuses the government from its primary obligations to first nations while subjecting those communities to substantial risk, significant financial burdens and a patchwork of provincial standards for the delivery of safe drinking water. What this bill does not do is adequately address the needs of first nations to build capacity in order to develop and administer water and waste water systems on their lands.

This bill would provide for federal regulations to govern drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in first nations communities, which sounds good enough, but we will see that the devil is in the details, like the way it leaves communities on the hook for existing problems they may not have created, even if what they really want to do is start over in an attempt to get things right.

Some of the items covered in this legislation are the training and certification of operators for drinking and waste water systems; source water protection; the location, design, construction, modification, maintenance, operation and decommissioning of drinking water and waste water systems; drinking water distribution by truck; the collection and treatment of waste water; the monitoring, sampling and testing of waste water and the reporting of test results; and the handling, use and disposal of products of waste water treatment.

As I mentioned, these regulations may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations governing drinking and waste water in first nations communities. What is not mentioned is that those regulations are not uniform, which could lead to unequal burdens for communities for what is primarily a federal responsibility.

The Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations expressed concern about using provincial regulations, claiming it would result in a patchwork of regulations, leading to some first nations having more stringent standards than others. Incredibly, the regulations in this bill would overrule any laws or bylaws made by a first nation. This is becoming old hat for the government. It has an insatiable capacity for paternalistic measures when it comes to first nations. That goes hand in hand with the seemingly uncontrollable urge to shortchange first nations with crippling cutbacks, as we saw recently with tribal councils. In keeping with the Conservatives' desire to excuse themselves from federal responsibilities, this bill would limit the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of their duties under the regulations the bill sets out.

As I mentioned at the outset, safe drinking water is a basic human right. For many first nation communities, adequate access to this has been a well-known problem for more than a decade.

This is not the first crack the Conservatives have had at this issue, either. What is unfortunate is how this really is not any better than the previous attempt.

The other place has sent us a similar piece of legislation that also tried to undermine the primary responsibility of the federal government when it comes to first nations. We have already seen the preference to employ the mishmash of provincial regulations on water safety instead of determining an even and consistent set of regulations, regulations that should have been arrived at in consultation with first nations instead of by unelected and unaccountable professional politicians in the other place. Perhaps if there were a few people involved in developing these regulations who would ultimately have to use them, we might be debating a bill with a little more merit to it.

I would not want anyone to think that New Democrats do not appreciate the need to address inadequate water systems or to improve standards in what can only be viewed as far too many communities for a country as rich as Canada. We understand the connection to health and economic well-being that flows from safe, dependable and affordable water. It is this legislation that is missing the mark.

For example, this bill would make first nations liable for water systems that have already proven inadequate, but has no funding to help them improve those deficient systems. Even if the first nation wants to build a replacement that would better suit their needs, it has to maintain their old and often costly systems at the same time. It is a case of “Sorry, you're stuck with it, and it's a money pit”. In that respect, this is a recipe for failure.

Then there is the end run on aboriginal rights that is written in to the bill. It is a seemingly innocuous statement that sets a terrible principle. By adding the words, “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”, the previous clause that states nothing in the bill may be taken as abrogating or derogating from aboriginal or treaty rights is negated.

I want to state that is a Conservative view of how relations should be pursued with first nations and bears no resemblance to the New Democrat belief that the relationship between Canada and our first nations should be rooted in a respectful nation-to-nation dialogue on matters like this.

It is a relationship that should grow out of a trust that is built in many ways, including through legislation arrived at as a result of thorough consultation and not as the product of a patriarchal view of how things could be better when viewed through the narrow lens of red and black ink on a ledger sheet.

New Democrats believe that regulations alone will not help first nations people to develop and maintain safe on-reserve water systems. They need crucial investments in human resources and physical infrastructure, including drinking water and sewage systems, and adequate housing. It is naive to think this can be achieved on the cheap.

In the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Constance Lake First Nation's water supply has been through a state of emergency. Its traditional water source has been contaminated by blue green algae, which resulted in a shutdown of the community's water treatment plant. After drilling two new wells, it is off boil water advisories for the first time in years, but it requires a new system to ensure quality and to meet its growing demand. Under this legislation, it would be liable for the old system while it tried to build a new one.

I want to reiterate the importance of safe drinking water. I would encourage all members to take a few moments to become familiar with the good work of the Safe Drinking Water Foundation. Its excellent website is a treasure trove of information and includes this language with respect to the challenges we are discussing today:

While it is hard for many rural communities to provide safe drinking water, the situation in First Nations communities is especially difficult. Since 1995, a number of reports have highlighted the unacceptable situation in these communities. Health Canada still tells approximately 120 communities to boil their water and Indian Affairs says that there is a good chance that water systems in 85 communities could break down. Without a proper regulatory framework and enough resources, First Nations will continue to face this risk to public health. We work with First Nations to improve public policies to make sure that First Nations get the systems and resources they need.

I would have the government note the reference to working with first nations and the need to provide resources to go along with the proper regulatory framework.

Ultimately, the Safe Drinking Water Foundation sees the challenges for what they are, that what is really needed is for the government to sit down with first nations in a peer-to-peer manner and work together to develop a kind of regulatory framework that will ultimately change the circumstances for many first nations.

While the government is able to ram through legislation, that should not be its goal, especially for issues as important as this. If the government is able to go back to the drawing board, undertake the necessary consultation to legitimize the process and draw up legislation that reflects as much, it will be better received on the opposition benches and, more important, among Canada's first nations.

I want to also mention that the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Treaty 7 first nations in Alberta have signalled continued concerns with the proposed legislation, signing among others the need to address infrastructure and capacity issues before introducing federal regulations.

It is not only the opposition that is against this legislation; it is first nations that would actually benefit from better drinking water. They know this is not what they need. They need actual resources.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a hugely important topic that we are discussing this afternoon. I do not think that there is anyone in this chamber who does not believe that the question of unsafe drinking water has been a chronic problem and an embarrassment to Canada. Many first nation communities, especially northern and rural communities, are still living in third world conditions here in Canada in 2012.

On September 30, 2012, 116 first nations communities throughout Canada were still subject to a drinking water advisory.

This is clearly unacceptable and requires immediate action.

As National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, Assembly of First Nations, said, “Access to safe, potable water and sanitation is a basic human right”. Unfortunately, the bill would simply provide for the development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in first nation communities.

According to every report addressing the tragic situation of water on reserve, the massive infrastructure deficit—and problems with capacity—must first be addressed before any legislation is passed.

I remember visiting the communities in northern Manitoba a little more than two years ago during the outbreak of H1N1. In Garden Hill, only 50% of the community had access to safe drinking water. In Wasagamack, only 20% of the homes had access to safe drinking water, and those are the homes on the footprint of the health unit. There are federal labour laws that insist people working in that space have to have clean drinking water.

Unfortunately, this bill does not provide any additional resources or funding to address this critical capacity gap in infrastructure, nor in training. Further, there are serious concerns about the lack of real consultation with first nations during the development of the legislation, infringements on first nations jurisdiction and the inadequacy of the non-derogation clause currently in the bill.

The government's own national assessment on first nations water and waste waster systems, released on July 14, 2011, identified 314 water systems as high risk. It is interesting that the report was ready in April but somehow ended up delayed in order to not actually influence the election of 2011. The majority of high-risk systems served a small population, and water systems in remote communities were 2.5 times more likely be at high risk than low risk.

Now, more than a year after the release of that report on the national assessment on first nations water and waste water systems, which shows 73% of reserve water systems at high or medium risk, the Conservatives have failed to make any real progress toward the right of every first nations community to clean, safe, running water. As previously noted, as of September 30, 2012, there were still 116 first nations communities across Canada under a drinking water advisory. This is simply unacceptable.

I want to remind this Chamber that some of the communities that do not have drinking water at all and have to truck bottles of water to each home are not included in those statistics.

The Assembly of First Nations estimates that it will cost approximately $6.6 billion over 10 years to address this deficit. The 2012 federal budget allocated $33.8 million over two years for first nations water systems and wastewater infrastructure. This level of funding will perpetuate the status quo from previous years and is grossly inadequate.

“The National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems” said it would cost $1.08 billion to bring everything up to protocol immediately. The government's own estimates identify a $5.8 billion funding shortfall to deal with the first nations water and waste water capacity gap.

After the release of the national report on September 13, 2011, I wrote to the minister with respect to what we thought was impending legislation on water and waste water management. I quote:

I am writing to you on behalf of Liberal Leader Bob Rae and my Liberal colleagues in the Senate and House of Commons to convey the position of our caucus regarding the government's approach to creating a regulatory regime for drinking water for First Nations on reserve. Our position [which has not changed] has two main points:

First, Liberals will not support any legislation on safe drinking water that is introduced without an implementation plan for additional resourcing that fully addresses the deficiencies identified in the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Waste Water Systems (prepared by Neegan Burnside Ltd., April 2011). There is a clear consensus that the resource gap must be addressed as a precondition to any regulatory regime. The Report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations (November 2006) states unequivocally that “it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements..”. This precondition was repeated by witnesses at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples during its study of Bill S-11, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nations lands, in spring of 2011.

Second, the government must collaborate with First Nations and obtain their free, prior and informed consent [as stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People] on the range of regulatory options regarding safe drinking water identified by the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations before the re-introduction of legislation. This approach is consistent with the Crown's obligation under the law, existing treaties and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We went on to say:

It is essential that the concerns raised in this letter are fully addressed in the government's policy on safe drinking water for First Nations. The body of survey data, research and parliamentary testimony on this matter are a clear guide on what must be done. It is up to the government to adopt a new approach of collaboration and mutual accountability—one that we believe will surely have better results for the health and well-being of First Nation citizens.

That was the letter we sent September 13, 2011, and we have not changed our minds.

A year ago, in November 2011, the Conservative government supported the Liberal Party motion introduced in the House of Commons calling on the government to address, on an urgent basis, the needs of those first nations communities whose members have no access to clean running water in their homes. Yet, the government has still not moved to resolve this deplorable situation a year later.

The 2012 federal budget allocated a measly $330.8 million over two years for first nations water infrastructure. However, this money simply maintained the status quo from the previous year and was far from what is required. The Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations was clear, and I will say it again. It is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements.

According to that report, regulation alone will not ensure safe drinking water. Any regulations must be accompanied by the adequate investment in human resources and physical assets. Yet, the government is content to impose standards and regulation on first nations regarding water and waste water treatment without providing the required investment in physical assets or capacity-building assistance to deal with the problem.

Where are the additional resources and funding to address the capacity gap? Where is the credible plan to bring first nations water systems up to a level comparable with other Canadian communities and the plan to keep them there, meaning the adequate training to keep those systems working after they have been installed? Where is the credible plan to have enough training and certification that the first nations themselves can design?

When I visited the Beausoleil First Nation in your riding, Mr. Speaker, I heard the story of unacceptable waits for a membrane just to fix a state-of-the-art treatment plant. There was worry after a lightning storm. There were fully qualified and very experienced 20-year veterans, who were unable to step into the water treatment plant after an electrical storm because they had not met the criteria. Even though in any oral exam these people were encyclopedic about the microbiology and the planning of it, they had to wait until the next morning for the first ferry for someone from the mainland to come along, to even walk into the plant.

It is ridiculous that we cannot find a system that allows people to work who know how to do the things that need to be done for their people. They end up on a boil water advisory because of that gap. It is just totally unacceptable and shows that no one is listening to these people as to what it takes to meet their needs.

The government must immediately target sufficient financial resources to close the capacity gap for first nations, in terms of both infrastructure and training regarding water and waste water systems on first nations land. Most of all, it must listen to first nations themselves and involve them in the planning for the placement of these projects as well as the training and certification.

There is no question that the goal of the bill is right. We want to address health and safety issues on reserve lands and certain other lands, by providing for regulations and waste water. Unfortunately, we believe the work has not been done in developing the kinds of regulations that are required. The regulations, on a province-to-province basis, to mirror existing provincial regulatory schemes, may not work all of the time. First nations must be consulted this time.

Despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric at the recent Crown–first nations gathering about resetting the relationship, the Conservative government has shown a total disregard for the rights of indigenous people. The government has used the same flawed approach on first nations accountability and matrimonial real property without discussions on the specifics of the bill with stakeholders or political parties before tabling.

Numerous witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee said that they were frustrated that the government did not consult the first nations regarding the drafting of this bill.

Introduced in the Senate in May 2010, Bill S-11, Safe Drinking Water for First Nations act, was sharply criticized by first nations and NGOs for ignoring the expert panel recommendations and for claiming sweeping jurisdiction without consultation.

Bill S-8 has most of the same flaws as its predecessor and does not seem to have taken first nations concerns into account. Consultation requires both a substantive dialogue and that the government listen and, when appropriate, incorporate what it hears into its approach. Consultation is not an information session, as we have heard time and time again, legislation after legislation, by the government. How can the government cite The Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations as the prime example of its consultation process and then move forward with a regulatory regime without a plan to deal with capacity issues for implementation? Consultation is of no use if the government simply disregards what it hears.

It is also unacceptable that the current non-derogation clause in the bill still expressly allows for the abrogation or derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights.

It is clear that the legislation completely misses the mark and fails to deal with the real issues underscoring first nations access to clean, safe drinking water. Until the government comes forward with a credible plan to deal with the huge shortfall in funding for needed infrastructure and the training required to further develop the operational capacity within communities to maintain that infrastructure, we are not going to tackle this national disgrace.

That is what the government's own expert panel has told it. That is what first nations is telling it. It is time for the government to listen.

It is with sadness, I remind the House, that it was seven years ago when the Kelowna accord was signed, after 18 months of work with first nations and provinces and territories. Five billion dollars was assigned to close the gap, and then the agreement was torn up as soon as this government came to office. We are seven years behind where we could have begun to address the problem with that money that was expressly for these purposes.

This afternoon I asked the minister whether we could expect to see in budget 2013 the kinds of dollars the Conservatives' own expert panels stated would be necessary to fix this problem.

To me, a strategy must be what, by when and how. My question for the government and the minister, accordingly, is when will 100% of first nations homes in 100% of communities have the same access to safe and potable drinking water and to waste water management as other Canadians in all communities and municipalities in this country?

I implore this House to actually call upon the government to put in place the dollars necessary to meet the objectives of the bill. Otherwise the bill is totally useless.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's presentation. Obviously, there are a few things we do not agree on. However, what is clear is that we agree on a couple of things.

First, with regard to capacity, we know that reporting, monitoring and maintenance is an absolutely essential facet to any comprehensive plan to address these issues and with that, an ongoing investment in infrastructure.

I appreciate the member's recognition and acknowledgement that this government has made those key investments to infrastructure and so, the final piece in this three-pronged response would be a piece of legislation.

She mentioned earlier some high-risk statistics. It is worth pointing out that some of those high-risk statistics are high-risk communities in one province but may not be in a high-risk category in another province. This depends, of course, upon a couple of key things. First, what those provincial standards are and what systems they use or do not use that constitute high risk.

As a practical matter, in terms of the need for a piece of legislation, Bill S-8 would fill that legal and regulatory vacuum. That is to say that the federal government and the first nation communities, for the first time ever, would bring together the three essential components: the capacity piece, reporting, monitoring and maintenance; the ongoing investment in infrastructure; and the need to create a regulatory framework so that first nation communities and the federal government of Canada can work together.

Would she agree that the legislation would do that and would also address the discrepancies between high risk as they are different or may be different from one jurisdiction to the other, be it a province or a territory?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, an analysis done by Koch Thornton on March 27, 2012, made a couple of observations about the problems with Bill S-8. One of them, of course, was that there is no new funding. It said:

The implementation of a complex source-to-tap water regulation regime, as contemplated by Bill S-8, is an enormous undertaking.

Then it went on to talk about how much money that would cost. It does acknowledge that Bill S-8 cannot provide for new government spending, but it indicates that what should have happened was that an appropriation bill should have also been tabled in order to indicate the government's commitment to the funding that is required.

The other thing the member for Hamilton Mountain talked about was inherent rights. This memorandum also talks about the failure to respect inherent aboriginal treaty rights and that the original bill, Bill S-11, took a very top-down approach. It talked about the abrogation and derogation clauses, but also about how the preamble does not cover some of the issues around what that consultation process would look like for including first nations.

On the whole issue of provincial regulation, from my understanding of it, it is not so much that this is a downloading for provincial governments in terms of cost but a reconciliation of standards at the provincial level. That would mean that even though the federal government has a nation-to-nation responsibility for first nations, it is actually saying, “Where you live will determine what your water quality standards are”.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands. I am going to start differently than I planned because I want to respond to something that both the minister and the parliamentary secretary addressed in their speeches or their questions.

I want to start with a quote from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 18 says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decisionmaking institutions.

Article 19 says:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

It was interesting to hear people describe the consultation process as engagement. It is an interesting twist of words, because when we talk about full, prior and informed consent, I am sure that many nations would argue that engagement does not equal full, prior and informed consent. I want to turn for a moment to some comments about the engagement or so-called consultation process.

The Safe Drinking Water Foundation, in a position statement it issued on April 14, 2009, talked about this engagement process. It said that few first nations voices were heard at the engagement sessions, but enough were present that INAC was able to claim that they were engaged. It said that many first nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta did not receive their engagement session invitation packages in sufficient time for people to attend the sessions. For example, George Gordon First Nation received its package on January 25 at noon when the engagement session was taking place the following day in Saskatoon, three hours away. Of course, we know what winter road conditions can be like in Canada at that time of year, so it adds an additional stress.

In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Foundation said that civil servants dominated conversations in each discussion group, offered incomplete and inaccurate information and failed to relay first nations' concerns to the larger audience. The INAC official report omitted all of that.

Consultation is all in the eye of the beholder. There are some guidelines that first nations have proposed in terms of what meaningful consultation would look like. I have been hearing from people who do not feel this process fulfilled that responsibility to consult.

I want to turn to the legislative summary of the safe drinking water first nations act that was put out by the Parliamentary Library so that people understand what it is we are talking about today. In the legislative summary it says:

The bill provides for the development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in First Nations communities...the bill also establishes that federal regulations developed in this regard may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations governing drinking water and waste water in First Nations communities.

It goes on to say:

The delivery of safe drinking water to on-reserve First Nations communities is critical to the health and safety of the communities’ residents. Access to safe, clean, potable water is also closely tied to the economic viability of individual communities. For more than a decade, research has indicated that many First Nations communities lack adequate access to safe drinking water. A 2001–2002 assessment found that the quality of almost three quarters of drinking water systems in First Nations’ communities were at significant risk.

I know some of those numbers have changed since then and I will talk about the waste water and drinking water assessments that the government commissioned.

Later on in the legislative summary it indicated some key challenges. It says:

In addition to the absence of a regulatory framework and the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities...core issues relating to the provision of safe drinking water on reserves include the high costs of equipment for, and construction and maintenance of, facilities in remote locations; infrastructure that is either obsolete, entirely absent or of low quality; limited local capacity and ability to retain qualified or certified operators; and the lack of resources to properly fund water and waste water system operation and maintenance.

All of us in the House would agree that there are significant challenges on first nation reserves about access to safe quality drinking water and to the functioning of the waste water treatment systems.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there is the St'át'imc reserve which butts up against the municipality of Nanaimo. We literally have a reserve that is in an urban area and there has just recently been an agreement to allow the extension of the water system, but the reserve has been there for decades.

The ability of the residents to engage in economic development on their recognized traditional lands has been hampered by the fact that they do not have access to clean water. In fact, on one of the reserves they are trekking in water. This is a reserve right beside the city of Nanaimo. We are not talking about some remote reserve hundreds of miles away that is accessible by air only, or ice road, or sealift.

Therefore, this is not just a rural and remote community problem. There are reserves close to urban areas that do not have the infrastructure to not only supply safe drinking water, but to enable them to engage in the economy in a more meaningful way.

Back in 2005, the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development also highlighted the problem of drinking water for first nation communities. I want to touch on a couple of points here.

The report noted that when it came to the safety of drinking water:

—residents of First Nations communities do not benefit from a level of protection comparable to that of people who live off reserves.

It goes on to say that:

Despite the hundreds of millions in federal funds invested, a significant proportion of drinking water systems in first nation communities continue to deliver drinking water whose quality or safety is at risk. Although access to drinking water has improved, the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of many water systems is still deficient. Moreover, to a significant extent, the success of the First Nations Water Management Strategy depends on INAC and Health Canada addressing the management weaknesses we have noted.

The report talks about a number of management weaknesses between the departments. It goes on to say:

The technical help available to First Nations to support and develop their capacity to deliver safe drinking water is fragmented. Given that most First Nations communities have fewer than 500 residents, and that providing drinking water has become more complex, the development of institutions that can provide ongoing technical support is critical to a continuing supply of safe drinking water for these communities.

In part, many first nation communities have relied on tribal councils to help them with technical advice and organizational administration. In the last round of budget cuts, we saw tribal councils had their funding cut. That is going to significantly impact on some of these smaller communities' ability to deal with some of these very complex issues.

The report, “Drinking Water on First Nations Communities” also highlighted some challenges . It is important to state this because it is a very complex problem. It says about location:

Many First Nations are located on the Canadian Shield, or other difficult terrain, making it technically difficult and costly to provide water services. Some reserves are isolated and can be accessed by roads only in winter; some have limited access to electricity or other forms of energy. Water sources are often located off reserves, and it is difficult for First Nations to protect them.

Interestingly, on the difficulty of protecting water, we have just seen a number of waterways no longer included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Many of those waterways on first nation reserves are no longer protected. Did the department do an analysis of what this change in the Navigable Waters Protection Act would have in the context of this legislation? I understand from a briefing from government officials that it has not been done.

It is a very important question. If first nations cannot protect their waters by whatever means available to them, one questions how they would improve the quality of the drinking water.

Other challenges include accountability. The report says:

Federal departments set requirements that make First Nations responsible for providing day-to-day drinking water. It is not clear who is ultimately accountable for the safety of drinking water.

Costs and financing...It is difficult to find and retain operators.

Technical standards. It is not clear which standards are applicable. Provincial guidelines and regulations on drinking water are to be applied except when less stringent than federal standards.

The population growth on reserves has been noted in report after report. This report says that:

On-reserve population is estimated to increase by 230,000 people between 2004 and 2021. It is difficult to estimate population growth and economic development in each community to plan water systems that can meet drinking water needs for 10 to 20 years.

It is a very challenging environment that we are operating in.

In the Report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, there was a number of matters that it highlighted.

First, it states:

Pursuing “laws of general application” is too uncertain

If it could be established that provincial laws of general application applied to Indian reserves, legal frameworks would be instantly in place and a great deal of consultative and Parliamentary process avoided. However, in the view of legal counsel to the panel, applying provincial drinking water and wastewater law as a law of general application is “fraught with such uncertainty that it is neither a viable nor effective option.”

We know that provincial laws differ from province to province so there will be a very uneven level of water quality standards from province to province, depending on which province the first nation resides.

It report says that before there is any legislation that there are preconditions that must be in place before legislation moves forward. The first is, “Provide resources, discuss and deal with high risks”. It says:

The federal government must close the resource gap

First, and most critically, it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements. While it is tempting to assume that putting a regulatory regime in place would reduce the dangers associated with water systems, exactly the opposite might happen. This is because creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management and governance.

But the problem is more fundamental than the resources that would be lost to creating a regulatory regime. The underlying issue is that the federal government has never provided adequate funding to meet the 1977 policy commitment of comparable facilities on reserve....If funding were supplemented to cover only the costs of a regulatory regime, the gap would continue.

We therefore see it as a precondition to moving forward on any of the viable options that the federal government must finally close the resource gap. It must provide, over a reasonable period, the funding needed to ensure that the quality of First Nations water and wastewater is at least as good as that in similar communities and that systems are properly run and maintained.

That is a precondition.

It also goes on to say that discussion with first nations is essential. It says:

The second precondition is the need for the federal government to assess whether it has a legal duty to consult with First Nations affected by any of the three options. This duty, according to the Supreme Court arises “when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.”

As the minister pointed out, it indicates in the preamble that it will work with first nations, but nowhere is that working relationship defined. Because of the ongoing mistrust with the government, that relationship needs to be clearly spelled out about how first nations will be consulted, not just engaged, in the development of these regulations, as we saw from other consultative processes.

I spoke this morning to Bill S-2 about the so-called consultative process that was conducted with matrimonial real property. Wendy Grant-John tabled a very thorough report and many of the critical recommendations were disregarded when Bill S-2 was brought forward. Therefore, not only must the consultation process be outlined and resources attached to it, but there must be a commitment that when that consultation process is completed, the recommendations that come forward be actually incorporated into the regulations.

Finally, one of the other preconditions was, “Deal with high-risk communities immediately”. It says:

—any of the options would take time – probably several years – to reach the ultimate goal of safer drinking water for all First Nations. In the meantime, however, many reserve residents face serious risks from the drinking water available to them, sometimes from collective systems but...often from individual wells or other water sources.

It talks about the fact that we cannot just wait for the regulations to be developed or legislation to move forward. Rather we have to actually deal with the high-risk systems.

I want to touch briefly on the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems. As I indicated earlier, in early 2000 a significant number of wastewater systems and water quality systems were at risk. That number has come down. I will give the government credit to the extent to which it has invested money over the years, so the numbers have reduced, but we know it has not been enough.

To provide a couple of really important numbers on this, nationally 571 of the 587 first nations, 97%, participated in the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems study. That is important.

It says that “12 First Nations have no active infrastructure on reserve lands, in some cases [this was] as a result of recent or ongoing land claim settlements”.

Under the heading “Individual Systems”, the document states that “[a]n assessment was completed for approximately 5% of the individual well and septic systems”. Some of these numbers are still staggering. It goes on to say:

36% of the individual wells sampled did not meet the requirements of the GCDWQ for a health related parameter (i.e. arsenic, barium, bacteriological, etc.) and 75% did not meet the GCDWQ for an aesthetic parameter (i.e. hardness, sodium, iron, manganese, etc.). Approximately 47% of the septic systems assessed had operational concerns identified, which were usually attributed to limited maintenance (not pumping out septic tank regularly), leaching beds installed in inappropriate soils and age....

It then states, “A risk assessment has been completed for each water and wastewater system according to the INAC Risk Level Evaluation Guidelines”. Overall, of the 807 water systems inspected, 39% were categorized as high overall risk, 34% were categorized as medium overall risk and 27% were categorized as low overall risk. Therefore, 73% of the systems have some level of risk.

There have been some improvements. We know the number of boil-water advisories has decreased. However, there are still significant problems with the water systems.

That leads me to a comment that I made earlier around the need to invest in the capacity for these water systems for first nations. Later on in the report, it did indicate:

Small water systems are generally found to have a higher risk rating than larger water systems. In many cases, these small facilities were not designed to meet current protocols and do not have the same level of resources available for operation as larger systems. In addition, the overall risk of a system appears to increase with remoteness.

Of the high risk systems, 150 systems serving 16% of the on-reserve population are flagged as high risk as a result of a bacteriological exceedance.

Of the 532 waste water systems inspected, 14% were categorized as high overall risk and 51% were categorized as medium overall risk. Again, what we are seeing is that there continues to be significant risk attached to both the water quality and to the waste water systems.

The report also made an estimate about what was required to upgrade to meet the protocol. The report said, “The total estimated construction cost to meet protocol is $1.08 billion”. That is a lot of money. However, we are talking about people's health and safety. It says:

[These] requirements...are considered to be related to health and safety, providing minimum levels of treatment, providing firm capacity, standby power and best management practices.

Members can see that the scope and the magnitude of the problem are very serious.

Groundwater is an important source and in a paper that was put forward by Sarah Morales, a submission to Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water, she pointed out that it is estimated that 750,000 people in British Columbia, and this is not just first nations, rely on groundwater as their drinking source. She said that protection of this drinking water source had become a major issue in British Columbia where the aquifers, underground sources of water, and so on, were at risk. She also said that the bacteriological contamination of private domestic wells was an issue across the province.

Members can see how important it is for whatever regulation or legislation we put in place to be effective in terms of dealing with water quality. It is also important that first nations have the resources they require to construct and maintain, and to train their operators, and that there is a meaningful consultation in the development of these regulations.

Based on what we have before us, unless there is some serious amendment to this piece of legislation, New Democrats will not be able to support it.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister has indicated that when the original Bill S-11 was tabled, the government heard, loudly and clearly, that there were some deficiencies in the bill. Now Bill S-8 has come as a revised form, but there are still some gaps in that piece of legislation.

I have two specific questions for the minister. In the preamble, as he pointed out, the bill indicates that the departments have committed to working with first nations to develop proposals for regulations to be made under this act. There is nothing in the act that outlines what those working relationships might look like. In the past there has developed a level of mistrust because under the specific claims legislation, for example, there was a protocol agreement signed where there was a commitment to work with first nations. However, when one of the assistant deputy ministers came before the aboriginal affairs committee, she indicated that the commitment to working did not actually mean that they were going to engage in a process.

So would the minister make a commitment in this House today to define exactly what working with first nations, in the preamble, would look like? Could he also comment on the fact that what this act does is propose a process to develop regulations, which have no oversight in Parliament? How he would see Parliament having oversight of that regulatory process?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to speak in support Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. This proposed legislation is an essential part of a larger collaborative strategy to ensure that residents of first nation communities can reliably access clean, safe drinking water, like all other Canadians.

Provinces and territories each have their own legally binding safe drinking water standards. These laws assign responsibility for the specific tasks and standards that protect the safety of drinking water, such as treatment and quality testing protocols. Under these laws, provincial, territorial and municipal authorities collaborate to ensure that residents have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water. Regulations differ based on local circumstances, but the overall impact is the same, as regulations help establish a chain of accountability and quality control.

In contrast, there are currently no legally enforceable protections governing drinking water and waste water on first nation lands. With the exception of a small number of self-governing first nations that have established laws in this area, most residents of first nation communities do not benefit from the legal protections for safe drinking water that all Canadians expect and deserve.

Bill S-8 would directly address this gap by enabling the federal government to work with first nations on a region by region basis to create regulatory regimes to govern drinking water in first nation communities.

It is important to note that Bill S-8 is enabling legislation. Following passage of Bill S-8, the Government of Canada would work in close partnership with first nations and other stakeholders to develop federal regulations tailored to their unique regional circumstances.

The underlying principle of Bill S-8 is simple: all Canadians, regardless of where they live, should have access to safe drinking water. In other words, when it comes to drinking water, the law should offer the same level of protection to Canadians, whether they live on or off reserve.

I want to speak to the long and collaborative effort leading up to this bill, which our government initiated six years ago to correct this serious issue. In 2008 we introduced the first nation water and waste water action plan, which provided $330 million in water and waste water funding over two years for treatment facility construction and renovation, the operation and maintenance of facilities, and training of operators on reserve. We have since renewed this program twice, most recently in economic action plan 2012.

Between 2006 and 2014, our government will have invested approximately $3 billion in water and waste water infrastructure and related public health activities to support first nation communities in managing their water and waste water systems. Throughout the same time period, we have invested in over 130 major projects and funded maintenance and operating costs of over 1,200 water and waste water treatment projects. We also invest $10 million a year to support the training and certification of first nation water systems.

However, we do recognize that funding is not the only solution to ensuring safe drinking water and health and safety. That is why in 2009 we initiated a national assessment of first nations' water and waste water systems. This was the most rigorous, comprehensive and independent study of its kind ever conducted in Canada, surveying 97% of drinking water and waste water systems on first nation lands. Site visits to the 571 participating first nations began in September 2009 and concluded in November 2010. The assessment took more than 18 months and involved the inspection of approximately 4,000 drinking water and waste water systems. The results, released last year, provide a comprehensive summary of the situation, including the amount of investment required to address deficiencies and reduce risk. They provide Canada with an unprecedented reference tool that will inform future water and waste water initiatives. This is for priority setting, appropriately done.

One of the main problems identified by the assessment was the lack of crucial regulations pertaining to operations, maintenance and operator qualifications when it comes to drinking water on reserve. This is consistent with the message conveyed in 2011 in the report by the Auditor General, which identified the lack of a legislative framework for first nations drinking water as a major impediment to ensuring clean drinking water for first nation communities.

Over the course of the past six years, we have also heard from countless other organizations and from first nations members, as well as other key stakeholders, about their concerns related to safe drinking water on reserve.

In 2006, an independent panel, consisting of experts jointly appointed by our government and the Assembly of First Nations, travelled across Canada for a series of public meetings. It listened to more than 110 presentations and received and considered more than two dozen written submissions. The independent panel heard from a wide range of people, representatives of first nations, provincial, territorial and municipal authorities, as well as private sector organizations.

The panel's final report stands as a valuable contribution to the effort to improve drinking water quality in first nation communities. A key recommendation was the development of appropriate regulations.

The following year, the Senate standing committee held a separate series of hearings to investigate the matter. In May of 2007, it released a report that called similarly on the government to undertake a comprehensive consultation process with first nation communities and organizations to develop regulatory options.

Our government responded to these calls for action and at the beginning of 2009, after significant consultation with first nations technical experts and leaders across the country, we released a discussion paper that outlined a proposed solution that would allow for regional differences to be reflected in the development of future regulations to be developed in partnership with first nations following the passage of enabling legislation. This discussion paper served as the basis to develop the approach outlined in Bill S-8, namely legislation that provides for the establishment of regulations that reflect the diverse needs and realities of first nations across the country.

In early 2009, a series of 13 engagement sessions were held across Canada. During these sessions, representatives of first nations, provinces and territories discussed the proposed legislative framework and identified potential improvements. Our government also provided funding to first nation organizations so they could conduct regional impact analyses of the proposed legislative framework. To discuss specific regional issues, further meetings were held with first nation chiefs and organizations. The government maintained an open dialogue with first nations throughout this time, explaining the purpose of the legislation and responding to concerns.

After the 2011 federal election, government officials and representatives from my office met on a without prejudice basis with representatives of first nations to discuss issues of concern and to explore potential solutions, in particular with first nation organizations from Alberta and the Atlantic region.

I have personally met with chiefs at several key crossroads in the negotiations to maintain forward momentum. The direction given to ministerial and departmental staff involved in these discussions was based on establishing and maintaining a respectful and credible relationship.

The progress made during these sessions is reflected in the legislation now before us. The commitment and leadership demonstrated by first nation leaders to improve the legislation should be commended.

There are several key differences between Bill S-8 and its predecessor. First and foremost, Bill S-8 includes a non-derogation clause, developed in collaboration with the Alberta Assembly of Treaty Chiefs, that specifically addresses the relationship between the legislation and aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

A preamble has also been added to describe this government's intention to develop regulations working with first nations. The proposed legislation also features new language to clarify several key points. In particular, the legislation would not automatically apply to first nations that are signatories to self-government agreements; regulations would not include the power to allocate water supplies or license users of water for any purpose other than for accessing drinking water; regulations on source water protection on first nation lands would be restricted so as to protect it from contamination; only the powers necessary to effectively regulate drinking water and waste water systems would be conferred on any person or body; and first nations would not be held liable for systems owned by third parties that are on first nations lands.

Bill S-8 was first introduced in the Senate in February of 2012, where it was subject to further scrutiny and review by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. During my testimony to the committee, I reiterated our government's intention to collaborate with first nations on the development of regulatory regimes.

As I described to committee members, we will work with first nations to ensure that the proposed regulatory regime will be rolled out in a phased approach over several years. Our government will work with first nations to develop regulations that would establish standards comparable to those that safeguard drinking water elsewhere in Canada. These regulations would come into force once communities have the capacity to adhere to them.

I also expressed the same commitment in a letter I sent to every first nation in Canada that would be subject to the legislation. A similar letter was sent to the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. This government's intentions are clear. We want to ensure all Canadians have access to safe drinking water. This is a matter of health and safety.

Clearly, the passage of Bill S-8 would extend the collaborative effort that was launched more than six years ago. This effort has inspired steady progress on drinking water issues. It has followed a strategic step-by-step approach that has addressed all of the main factors that conspire to undermine access to safe drinking water in many first nation communities.

Training and certification programs have increased the number of qualified operators. Protocols and procedure manuals have been published and disseminated. Investments in infrastructure have upgraded dozens of treatment facilities. Plans are in place to strategically address the specific needs of other facilities.

Bill S-8 also serves as a clear demonstration of our government's commitment to strengthening the relationship between Canada and first nations through working in partnership to address issues of mutual concern. It proposes a process that would see first nations and government officials work together to design and implement appropriate regulations. Some first nations have already expressed their eagerness to work with the government to develop these regulations.

Back in November of 2011, the Liberal member for Toronto Centre put forward a motion calling on the government to improve first nations access to safe drinking water.

The House fully endorsed this motion. I hope that now my hon. colleagues opposite will honour their noble commitment to improving access to safe drinking water and back this very important legislation, which would go far beyond the words of that motion. On this side of the House, we are interested in more than passing motions. We are interested in concrete action. I hope the opposition will stand with the government as we move forward to take concrete action for first nation peoples.

Thousands of Canadians currently lack the legislative protection needed to safeguard the quality of their drinking water. Bill S-8 would not only ensure that this gap is closed but that it is done in close partnership with our first nations partners. I urge my hon. colleagues to endorse Bill S-8.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not know anything about a so-called deal that the NDP House leader talked about, I do know the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance announced a process she was going to recommend to the finance committee to allow study of the bill, which I understand was adopted yesterday. It is a large bill, but it is not as large, of course, as the one that the Leader of the Opposition had when he was part of the cabinet in Quebec.

However, that being said, it is important that it be studied.

Consequently, as our government proposed, next week, 11 committees, including the finance committee, will study the important and necessary economic measures proposed in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

Yesterday, the finance committee got to work on this bill, not even 24 hours after the House passed it at second reading. This bill will implement key measures, like an extension of the small business hiring tax credit; and let me assure the House, it will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion, job-killing carbon tax.

Turning to business in the chamber, we will start second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, momentarily. I think it will be today.

Tomorrow, we will start report stage—and, ideally, third reading—of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

As a former trade minister, I can tell you that the NDP is opposed to free trade. They have made that clear numerous times by dragging out debate, delaying and voting against free trade agreements here in the House. In fact, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior outlined his party's position when he stated that “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation.” That is the NDP position.

We will continue debating free trade with Panama next week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. This bill will finally put into law our free trade agreement—an agreement which was signed here in Ottawa almost two-and-a-half years ago.

On Monday, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, before question period. Based on the speeches we heard the last time it was before the House, I hope that these two extra hours of debate will be sufficient for it to proceed to committee.

After question period on Monday, we will see Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act to combat elder abuse, considered at report stage and, hopefully, third reading.

Also Monday will be the day designated, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2)(a), for resuming the adjourned debate on the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Finally, next Thursday, we will consider Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, which I understand was considered clause by clause at the human resources committee this morning. Given the unanimous endorsement the bill received at second reading, I hope it could pass and be sent to the other place before we rise for the constituency week.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to be in accord with the official opposition and NDP House leader. However, my disappointment was that before we started debate on Bill C-45, what we first encountered was a delay tactic in the form of a concurrence motion brought by the Liberal Party. Indeed, that was very disappointing to us and a surprise because Bill C-45 is important. It is the government's top legislative priority for this fall. All parties know that. He is quite right that I did want to see it debated in substance in the House rather than see those kinds of tactics to avoid debate.

Bill C-45's measures will further Canada's economic recovery and ensure the foundation for more good-quality jobs on top of the over 820,000 net new jobs we have already had. It includes an extension of the highly successful small business hiring credit that is directly helping Canadian entrepreneurs create new jobs.

Unfortunately, we have seen the NDP take an anti-job creation position. Believe it or not, the NDP finance critic actually dismissed the hiring credit as yet again another across-the-board cut for small businesses.

We want to see taxes lowered. We do not want to see higher taxes or an NDP carbon tax. That is why we have a budget bill that keeps those taxes low.

I am pleased to say that we will be voting on C-45 on Tuesday night at second reading, which will give us the opportunity to send it to the finance committee for consideration. The parliamentary secretary for finance has made it clear that she will ask the finance committee to ask, I believe, 10 other committees to study elements of the bill and potentially make recommendations with respect to changes or adopt its contents. The opposition and government members are free to make amendments at committee based on their own study as well as on the studies of those other committees. Therefore, there will be ample study of the bill and that is good for all.

Bill C-45 will continue to be debated this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. As I said, the vote on the bill will take place on Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday, we will take up report stage—and, hopefully, third reading—of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act. Should we be able to make quick work of that debate, the House will take up Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday morning, the House will consider second reading of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. And, after question period, we will turn to Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, also at second reading.

Finally, on Friday, we will start report stage of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama—an agreement whose time has long come. In fact, when I was the public safety minister, I was honoured to be present when the Prime Minister concluded negotiations in Panama City, some 38 months ago.

First Nations

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I want to talk today about a couple of observations I have made so far in the debate. First, the spirit of both the leader of the third party and the member from this side have some kind of common objective or goal. I think everyone in the House agrees that the Indian Act does stand in the way of successes of first nations communities and continues to prevent first nations from becoming more autonomous, self-sufficient and full participants in a Canadian economy. The question is the pathway.

The motion today, in my respectful view, proposes an ill-conceived process to get rid of the Indian Act and would jeopardize current progress made by this government and first nations. Indeed, whether we talk about the Indian Act or the legislation that has been produced, going back the past couple of decades but particularly in the last six years, the motion says that we should undo all of that and recreate something in three months.

It seems a little unusual, and probably not achievable, given the number of communities across the country that are implicated in this, which raises my final point in this observation with respect to the debate so far. It appears as though the leader of the third party was using a frame of reference for a number of Inuit communities that actually are not under the Indian Act.

I hope, when the member says that he had consultations with first nations leaders or aboriginal Canadians, they were people who had a thoughtful reflection on the Indian Act.

This motion ignores the fact that the government has been engaging directly with first nations communities and organizations to conclude a number of agreements and develop legislation, tangible options that go outside of the Indian Act. There are some examples. The First Nations Land Management Act brings a community out of more than 25% of the act, read together, for example, with the substantive proposals in my colleague's private member's bill.

We are dealing with a number of important things: removing once and for all any legislative reference to the Indian residential school; dealing with the powers of bylaws at the community level; and dealing with wills and testaments. These are substantive changes that are overdue, not to mention the fact that the Conservative member who has brought the private member's bill is a first nations Canadian. He falls under the Indian Act for the purposes of his status. He brings, in the context of a private member's bill, and as I understand as a person who is generationally tied to the Indian residential school, a particularly meaningful and thoughtful perspective to incremental changes that need to be made.

At the historic Crown-First Nations Gathering held this past January, the Prime Minister reiterated our commitment to working together with first nations. He said:

—there are ways, creative ways, collaborative ways, ways that involve consultation between our government, the provinces and First Nations leadership and communities. Ways that provide options within the Act, or outside of it, for practical, incremental and real change.

The good news is that the Prime Minister has seen to it that this is already in process and we continue to bring legislation before this place that is substantive and dynamic to the extent that it incrementally chips away at the scope of the Indian Act and certainly attempts, in best efforts and good faith, to deal with those parts of that legislation that are no longer useful and that no longer apply and hold us all back as Canadians, not just first nations for the purpose of the Indian Act.

We know from past experience that proposals to significantly overhaul the Indian Act did not work and many of them came from that side of the House, from that third party. The Liberals passed attempts to overhaul the Indian Act, all of which were met with complete and utter failure and failed substantively to develop modern legislation and meaningfully dismantle the Indian Act.

In 1969, for example, Jean Chrétien published a white paper that sought to introduce measures to assimilate first nations people. That paper was overwhelmingly rejected by first nations people.

In 1996, the same party introduced the 1996 Indian Act optional modification act that attempted to introduce major changes to a number of areas, such as band governance, bylaw authority and legal capacity and the regulation of reserve lands and resources. It was also met with significant opposition and died on the order paper.

Most recently, in 2002, Bob Nault, the former MP for Kenora, from where I hail, introduced the first nations governance act, which would have involved significant changes to aspects of band governance. Many of those proposed changes were quite positive, but the bill died on the order paper.

For the past six years, in stark contrast, this government has been taking real action to provide first nations with alternatives to the Indian Act. Here I would like to expand on a series of targeted incremental initiatives that demonstrate the government's firm resolve to addressing the challenges the Indian Act presents to the political, social and economic dynamic and development of first nations communities that fall under the Indian Act. Our approach is to bring incremental change in consultation with first nations through new measures, investments and legislation that would provide alternatives to the Indian Act.

Earlier this year, we welcomed 18 new first nations to the first nations land management regime, which I referred to earlier. The regime enables first nations to opt out of more than 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act and, in the process, assume greater control over their reserve lands, resources and governance.

There are now 56 first nations operating or developing land laws under enabling legislation known as the First Nations Land Management Act. Participating first nations are better able to pursue economic activities, create jobs and have more self-sufficient communities. To improve the regime, we collaborated with the First Nations Land Advisory Board, removing legislative barriers that prevent or delay first nations from taking advantage of the benefits of assuring land management responsibility. Yet the opposition voted against these amendments.

At committee we are doing some hard work around land management and land use planning and I appreciate the collective efforts of many of my colleagues, if not all, on the standing committee for their substantive contributions to this important work. The modernization of lands management regimes helps unlock the potential of reserve lands and natural resources and frees first nations from some of the economic limitations imposed by the Indian Act.

Another example of legislative change that would unlock the potential of first nations is Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, presently awaiting second reading in the House. The objective of this proposed legislation is to ensure that first nations have the same health and safety protections for drinking water in their communities as other Canadians. It focuses on capacity, reporting, monitoring and maintenance of state-of-the-art facilities that often involve intensive management given the lands that many of the first nations communities live on in isolated and remote parts of this country. It deals with an ongoing commitment to water infrastructure. Finally, Bill S-8 is a mechanism for both governments to develop in partnership enforceable regulations to ensure for the first time that there is access to clean and reliable drinking water, the effective treatment of waste water and the protection of sources of water on first nations land.

This is about working together on a process that has led to the development of these and many other pieces of legislation. As someone who has invested the greater part of his professional life to areas where the Indian Act applies, including health for first nations communities and water and waste water treatment, for example, I would say that we are seeing across this county a collective effort and the need to continue the consultation process for legislative tools outside of the Indian Act so that communities can thrive. These are in areas of infrastructure and economic development. Here we look forward to studying my colleague's private member's bill at committee, hearing from witnesses and, as always, moving on to bigger and better things.

The motion before us now calls for a new approach, one that we cannot support, as it would jeopardize the progress being made. I encourage my hon. colleagues to reject the motion.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I would have been quite happy to have consented to the motion had the member not included in it a provision for an additional opposition day. Had the member decided to conclude that NDP was prepared, since its subject for today was food safety, to make the balance of the day the debate on Bill S-11 and then have it proceed to committee, we would have been quite delighted to consent.

In terms of his suggestions on the budget bill, I am looking forward to meeting with him and discussing with him what opportunities might exist there further.

Earlier today, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

This important piece of legislation will bolster Canada’s economy and help improve communities with initiatives that build a strong economy and create jobs, support families and communities, promote clean energy and enhance neutrality of the tax system, and respect taxpayers’ dollars.

We will start second reading debate of Bill C-45 on Wednesday—once honourable members have had a chance to review the bill and discuss it at next week’s caucus meetings. The debate will continue on Thursday and Friday.

I genuinely hope all members will take advantage of the budget bill study week that is available to review the valuable measures that are set out as the second half of our legislative arm of our comprehensive economic action plan 2012. One highlight of the study week will be a briefing arranged by the minister for all hon. members on Monday evening. I hope many MPs can attend, and certainly more than the paltry attendance of opposition members that appeared this spring for the briefing on Bill C-38.

I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.

I turn now to the business of the House leading up to Wednesday.

This afternoon we will see the conclusion of the NDP's opposition day. Regrettably, I was personally disappointed that the official opposition did not answer my call last week to lay out the details of its $21.5 billion carbon tax and how it would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Though, I was encouraged that this week in question period the New Democrats actually did acknowledge the subject and raised it.

Tomorrow and Monday will see us resume second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. I understand we should finish that debate sometime on Monday, at which that time we will then turn to Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

On Tuesday, we will debate the second reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, unless we find some other approach that would allow us to move on a more urgent basis. Since we did not get unanimous consent to move it forward quickly, we are hopeful there will be some other approach that can be agreed upon to move quickly with it. We hope that if we do debate it that day, we will be able to deal with it quickly and then spend the balance of that day debating Bill C-15 and Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the question from the member for Churchill.

Let me begin by reassuring my hon. colleague that our government continues to work with willing partners to improve the quality of life of aboriginal people. We have made significant targeted investments that have a direct impact on living conditions, including education, water and housing.

Let me remind the hon. member that economic action plan 2012 contained significant financial and legislative commitments to support our government's approach to improving the living conditions of aboriginal people. We have taken concrete steps to address water and waste water issues on reserve to ensure that first nation communities have access to safe drinking water.

Economic action plan 2012 includes almost $331 million, over two years, to help sustain progress made to build and renovate water infrastructure on reserve and to support the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality in first nation communities. In addition, in February 2012, we introduced Bill S-8, the safe drinking water and first nations act, to ensure enforceable drinking water standards for first nations on reserve.

These initiatives and investments build on the concrete actions our government has taken since 2006 to support first nation communities in improving access to potable water, including sustainable development and investments under Canada's economic action plan and the first nations water and waste water action plan. These examples demonstrate our government's commitment to address the issues of water and waste water on reserve and to ensure first nations have access to safe, clean drinking water.

We are also very proud of our record of partnership and collaboration with provinces and first nations. A good example is our commitment to working with first nation partners to provide first nation students with the quality education they require to realize their aspirations. In collaboration with first nation partners, we are working on a concrete agenda to improve the education outcomes of first nation students and to provide them with the opportunity to acquire the skills they need to enter the labour market and to participate fully in a strong Canadian economy.

Of the $270 million announced in budget 2012, $100 million will be used to provide early literacy programming and other supports and services for first nation schools and students, and to strengthen the relationships with provincial school systems. This also includes $175 million to build and renovate schools on reserve, providing first nation students with better learning environments.

Our government will also work to explore mechanisms to ensure stable, predictable, sustainable funding for first nation elementary and secondary education. Access to high-quality education is crucial to success later in life. We believe that all Canadians benefit when first nation students can access education and can fulfill their aspirations.

When it comes to food security for aboriginal communities, our government supports this initiative through a number of programs, including nutrition north Canada. Nutrition north Canada is a program that helps provide northerners with greater access to nutritional perishable food, such as fruits, vegetables, bread, meat, milk and eggs. Furthermore, this program benefits 103 remote northern communities in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

Our government remains committed to improving the lives of aboriginal people, as these initiatives truly demonstrate. This is definitely in contradiction to the direction the NDP would take us. As the member opposite mentioned, her party's preference would be to elevate taxes, to focus on something that we would really prefer not to focus on. The NDP wants to implement a $21 billion carbon tax, something that would ensure that we cannot create jobs and provide opportunities for these young aboriginal Canadians. We are against that. We are going to be focused on ensuring that aboriginal Canadians can succeed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by addressing Bill S-11, the food safety bill. It was introduced by this government in the Senate to bring about changes that would strengthen our food safety system further following the implementation of the 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report, which further strengthened our system.

I believe the comments, to which the member referred, by the Conservative caucus were not about the NDP obstructing the bill in the Senate but rather about statements that had been made by NDP members previously following the introduction of the bill that the NDP would oppose the bill. Of course, the issue we are looking forward to is having it pass successfully in the Senate. We hope that people will see the urgency more clearly, that we will get the support of the Liberals and that we will see its rapid passage here in the House. We would be delighted if we had support to do that very quickly from the NDP and other parties.

Now for the business ahead of us.

This afternoon, we will continue our safe streets and communities week with second reading debate on Bill C-43, Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

In last year's election, the Conservative Party promised to put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal. This bill follows through on our commitment to Canadians.

We will resume debate tomorrow, when I am optimistic, based on discussions, that debate will end—and, then, we will have concluded the first three weeks of our hard-working, productive and orderly fall sitting.

On our constituency week, I hope all members of Parliament and staff in this place will have an opportunity relax. Many of our pages will have their first opportunity to go home since they started the year here. I hope on our return we will all be ready to be productive and work hard because we have much to do.

On Monday, October 15, before question period, the House will start the second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. We will also debate this bill on Wednesday and Friday of that week. This, of course, is designed to continue to make Canada and, in fact, the whole world, a safer place.

After question period on October 15, we will kick-off debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, which shares the same objectives. It would implement Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Tuesday, October 16, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see the House debate a Liberal motion. We eagerly await the content of that motion.

Thursday, October 18, shall be the sixth allotted day when we will consider the New Democratic proposal.

It is my personal hope that having given the NDP three chances already this fall to articulate to the House and to all Canadians how it will implement its $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax that it will finally choose this as its subject for debate. I hope the NDP members will seize that opportunity and let Canadians know once and for all the fine details of their scheme to raise the price of gas, groceries, electricity and winter heat.

Should we have additional time that week upon our return, or even this week if we move quickly, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

Of course, I am always open to suggestions from the opposition. If they are willing to accelerate any of those bills for quick passage, I will call them.

Finally, I wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving. I hope that everyone has a productive and hard-working week working with their constituents.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for his kind comments about co-operation. It is true that we have been working together in a co-operative fashion on the bills he mentioned. In fact, without utilizing time allocation, after nine days of co-operative debate on things that everybody agrees on, we have been able to have one vote on one bill at one stage. If members wonder why it is difficult to get things done, that indicates why: we all agree on something and it still takes nine days to get one bill to one vote at one stage.

Anyway, this afternoon, we will continue with our helping families in need week with second reading debate on Bill C-44, which will undertake several steps to help hard-working Canadian parents in times of need.

Based on discussions, I expect that we will finish debating Bill C-44 today. If so, I will then call Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans), tomorrow.

I understand that there is interest in all corners of the House to see this legislation referred to committee quickly. I hope so, because I believe that all parties want it passed. We may be able to make that happen.

Next week we are going to focus on making our streets and communities even safer. From Wednesday through Friday we will consider second reading of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which will firmly show that Parliament does not tolerate criminals and fraudsters abusing Canadian generosity.

On Monday and Tuesday, we shall have the third and fourth allotted days. Both days will go to the official opposition. I am eagerly waiting to see what we debate those days. Perhaps the New Democrats will use the opportunity to lay out their details for a $21 billion carbon tax which would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Perhaps I should correct the record; it would be a $21.5 billion carbon tax. I know there are some in the press gallery who want us to be precise about that.

If we have a hard-working, productive and orderly week in the House which sees debates on Bill C-44, Bill C-21 and Bill C-43 finish early, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which the official opposition supports, despite debating it for four days last week; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me formally welcome back all hon. members to the House of Commons from their productive summers in their ridings, which I trust they had, working with and listening to constituents.

On the government side of the House, we heard loud and clear that the priority of Canadians remains the economy. It is our priority too. Not one person raised with me a desire to see a $21 billion carbon tax implemented to raise the price of gas, groceries and winter heat. I do not expect the member will see that in our agenda.

I also want to extend a warm welcome, on behalf of Conservatives, to this year's class of pages. I am certain that their time with us, here in our hard-working, productive and, I hope, orderly House of Commons, will lead to lifelong memories.

Yesterday, we were able to pass Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, at second reading. I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation on that.

I am optimistic that we will see similar co-operation to allow us to finish second reading debate tomorrow on Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about.

This afternoon, of course, is the conclusion of the New Democrats' opposition day. As announced earlier this week, Tuesday will be a Liberal opposition day.

On Monday, the House will start debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada and it sends a strong signal to foreign criminals that Canada is not a safe haven. I hope we will have support from the opposition parties for rapid passage of the bill designed to make our communities safer.

Starting on Wednesday, the House will debate Bill C-44, the helping families in need act. Once the opposition caucuses have met to discuss this important bill, I am confident they would want to support the early passage of this legislation as well. It would enhance the income support provided to families whose children have been victims of crime or are critically ill.

If we have additional time tomorrow or next week, the House will consider Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the Defence of Canada Act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

We are interested in Bill C-21, which deals with accountability for political loans and making that consistent with the other political contribution provisions. If we have a consensus among parties to bring that forward, we will certainly do that.

Similarly, if we can see a consensus among parties on passing Bill C-32 as it has been presented to the House, we would be pleased to do that on unanimous consent.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

moved that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

[Andrée Côté, Women's and Human Rights Officer, National Programs Section, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Hello. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation to this important committee, which has always played a role in ensuring that women's rights are respected and promoted in Canada. I truly appreciate it.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is the largest federal public sector union. We represent more than 180,000 people from coast to coast to coast. While the majority of PSAC members work for the federal government and its agencies, PSAC also represents workers in the private sector.

I have prepared some written notes. Unfortunately, the translation was not ready, but I would invite the clerk of the committee to share the notes with you as soon as they are available. I will be presenting a summary of those notes today.

The theme that this committee is looking at today is truly an important theme. The need to improve the economic prospects for girls is a response to the fact that girls still remain confronted with the reality of discrimination and oppression in their early years.

Incest and sexual abuse is often perpetrated within the family. We know that two-thirds of sexual abuse occurs in a private home, and most victims of sexual assault are assaulted before the age of 25.

Racism, Islamophobia, discrimination against aboriginal peoples, homophobia, and discrimination against young girls with disabilities remain endemic. At least one in 10 girls lives in poverty. I'm not advocating child labour here, but when girls or young women work, they often work for minimum wages, part-time, and in jobs without benefits and that are dead-end.

Young girls living in rural regions—about 20% of the population—often do not have access to public transportation. There is little, if any, child care, and important services are sometimes not offered. I'm thinking, for example, of abortion services in regions. Young lesbians and queer girls are often isolated and even more marginalized in rural regions.

The proposed changes to the immigration and refugee law being discussed in this budget will further marginalize and disadvantage young girls. Thousands of people now receiving medication under the interim federal health program will no longer, as of June 30, 2012, be able to access that program. This will surely have a very harsh impact on young immigrant and refugee girls.

It goes without saying that there is much to be done to improve the economic status of girls. All in all, the measures that must be taken to improve their condition are similar to those that need to be taken to improve the situation of women. We are talking about political and social reforms that seek to transform the systemic nature of violence and discrimination against women, including economic discrimination.

What needs to be done to attack this problem? We will provide some suggestions, which of course do not make up an exhaustive list.

One of the first things we would consider and find important is improving health care for girl children on reserve. We know there is a very high birth rate among aboriginal girls, yet it's very difficult having a baby on a remote reserve, and in fact it's dangerous. We know, for example, that first nations women in Manitoba are twice as likely to watch their babies die as non-aboriginal women. Also, about 20% of babies in some Manitoban communities end up back in the hospital with respiratory tract disease. Fewer than one third of the babies born between 2003 and 2005 in Hollow Water and Sagkeeng, Manitoba, received routine vaccinations.

The federal government has a really important role to play here because it's the federal government that is responsible for health care on reserves. Funding is urgently needed, and safe water is urgently needed. We know that there are over 100 aboriginal communities under boil water advisories right now. Yet the federal government is about to pass Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, which will shift responsibility to reserves but does not provide the funding necessary for this change.

Another program that is essential to the well-being of young girls is adequate funding for early childhood education. Canada is one of the richest countries in the world, and yet we rank at the low end of the international scale in terms of the quality of our childcare and our access to such services. In Canada, over 70% of mothers with children under the age of five are currently working outside the home. Yet, only 20% of children have access to regulated child care spaces. Quebec is one of the only provinces that has really invested public funds in daycares, with its famous $7 a day daycare. A recent study showed that the government brings in more money than it spends by subsidizing public child care networks.

Nevertheless, despite this evidence, in 2006, the federal government did away with the federal-provincial-territorial agreements regarding funding for child care services and replaced them with a benefit that costs a lot of money and, when it comes right down to it, offers parents very few choices.

Education of young girls on reserve is another key component of a successful strategy for economic prosperity. We know that the income gap disappears between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people when university degrees are attained. However, only 8% of aboriginal people, compared to 22%, actually have university degrees at this time. So federal funding is urgently needed to ensure a better education on reserve.

With regard to employment equity policies, even today, seven out of 10 women still work in traditional fields: office work, education, social services and so on. The federal government's economic action plan and the Plan Nord in Quebec both contain two large projects that give very little to women because women are still excluded from the construction industry and major projects.

Employment equity policies need to be improved. In the budget that was tabled a few weeks ago, we once again see a step backward in terms of employment equity because the measures the federal government just announced will seriously weaken employment equity obligations for federal contractors.

Effective measures to protect young girls against workplace discrimination and harassment must be developed. They must be given information and help in exercising their rights. They must be given legal assistance and mechanisms for accessing justice. Once again, what do we see at the federal level? The federal government is attacking access to justice mechanisms. It eliminated the regional offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and abolished the court challenges program and the Law Reform Commission of Canada. That is not the path we should be following.

Pay equity is also needed. We know that, 30 years after the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed, women are still experiencing discrimination in the labour market and earn, on average, 70% less than men when they work full time year-round. In 2004, the federal government's pay equity task force recommended that a federal pay equity law be passed. Nevertheless, as soon as this government was elected, it announced that it had no intention of following those recommendations. We believe that this is an essential measure.

We recently won a pay equity case for our Canada Post members at the Supreme Court level. The women had to fight in court for almost 30 years for this. Clearly, the current system is not working and is ineffective.

We must protect public sector jobs. Jobs in the federal public service are a good source of employment for girls and women, and the cuts—